Omar M. Campbell: Changing America

Advertisement

Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared that his goal, if elected, was to transform America. Apparently, most of us jumped to the conclusion that he meant for the better.

Although suspicious of a graduate of Illinois politics and his association with ACORN and “community organizing,” I assumed he meant a positive transformation for the good of the country. I wished him well (at the time).

How wrong can one be? A talking head on TV said that the only thing Obama has bettered in five-plus years in office was his golf score. I have to agree with that.

Our president is an affable, charismatic celebrity, gifted in giving inspirational speeches promoting his party and soliciting funding for it.

It is difficult to find any positives he has done for the country. He literally has thumbed his nose and given the one-finger salute to the Constitution, the Congress and public opinion.

“Progressive” is a term coined by his party to camouflage a gradual drift into a socialistic welfare state. The approach is catering to the politically unaware and loyalists who vote a party line regardless of merit or content. Their votes count just as much as those of the politically aware. And there is a lot of them.

Although Obama cannot run for another term, his ideological goal is to maintain liberalism and control of government by his party.

The litany of scandals and executive letter fiats is too long to list here. However, the more egregious ones are “affordable” health care, IRS, Bengazi, the Dream Act and other executive fiats, advising Atty. Gen. Holder which laws to enforce and flip-flops on gays and gay marriage to gain their votes.

We have to put up with the situation for nearly two and a half more years. Hopefully, voters will replace the Senate majority and strengthen the existing House majority this November at the midterm elections.

The key to getting our country back on track is to elect someone with managerial and statesmanship abilities.

Omar M. Campbell

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree and hope America wakes up soon to the realization that progressive/liberal policy is causing tremendous damage to our great country and the future of our people. Anyone under 30 should recognize progressive liberals as the thieves they have become and vote accordingly.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, and he hasn't killed tens of thousands of innocent people under false pretense and wasted trillions in the process either. Small potatoes I know compared to your delusional scoreboard!

0

Neil O'Keeffe 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I have different plans but say hello to Lucifer for all of us Steve!

0

Dan Shores 8 months, 2 weeks ago

The Obama administration has been a complete disaster just as Omar says, unless of course you count the successes such as, the stock market more than doubling in value, the saving of the auto industry, the saving of the banking industry, the steadily improving job market, the steadily improving housing market, the steadily improving construction industry, the steadily improving economy and consumer confidence on the rise, the end to the war in Iraq, the ending of the war in Afghanistan, no new wars, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, people with pre-existing conditions no longer being denied health insurance. What a disaster! Oh and by the way, there has not been one shred, one iota of evidence produced to date, despite numerous hearings and investigations, to suggest that the President, the White House or any part of the administration is guilty of any wrong doing or illegal act with regard to Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA or any of the phony scandals invented by the hard right.

1

Harvey Lyon 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, the stock market is about where it was in 2008......

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan, Thanks for coming back around. Let's begin with a discussion of the first success you attribute to Obama:

"stock market more than doubling in value"
Have you ever played monopoly, Dan? Imagine a monopoly game that gets tight; you know, someone is about to go bankrupt. Rather than allow the player to fold and parse his assets among debtors, the banker opens up a new game of monopoly and adds all of the money from the new game into the old game and loans money to the losing player so they don't go bankrupt. What changes would result as reflected in the price of property and hotels? Would values remain constant with twice the money in circulation? That manipulation is called quantitative easing and is the exact same thing as you saying "I can't be broke because I still have checks in my checkbook." The Unites States Treasury says "We can't be broke, we still have paper and ink!" hence the dow rides to 16k.

BTW, your list at the end omitted a reference to Operation Fast and Furious where the Obama admin intentionally provided Mexican drug cartels with guns resulting in the death of BP Agent Brian Terry.

I missed you, Dan. Where have you been?

0

john bailey 8 months, 2 weeks ago

oh looky the sniveler is back..... worst administration ever.....spin any way you want , he is driving us straight into the ground.

0

Fred Duckels 8 months, 2 weeks ago

We are forced to print money in order to keep interest rates low and the markets high, otherwise overpromised government pension and benefit funds would drive us all into bankruptcy.

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

...or those pension and benefit funds could be brought into some sense of reality. As long as there's paper and ink, there won't be hard-choices made. Printing money only prolongs and exacerbates the inevitable. It's a sure-fire way to wreck a currency. Ask Germany or Argentina or Venezuela or Romania or Greece or (insert failed social democracy here). It's hard to believe there are grown-ups in 2014 dumb enough to believe that firing up the money-presses will solve the economic issues wrapped around prices and interests rates.

0

rhys jones 8 months, 2 weeks ago

The shell game devised and implemented by the Federal Reserve is working to perfection. Two ineffective political parties, squabbling and pointing fingers at each other, both controlled by the Fed over which neither has authority, distract our attention from the real criminals, manipulating our economy via unending wars among other means, at no risk or loss to themselves, for their own personal gain. Nobody sees it, because everybody is too busy blaming the wrong folks.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Rhys, You are spot on. "The Fed's policies have been an unqualified success for financiers and an abject failure for the bottom 99.5% who have to work for a living." http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar14/Fed-failsA3-14.html

and more from Charles Hugh Smith "The Fed apologists claim that lowering interest rates to zero benefited American who saw their interest payments decline. Nice, but not necessarily true. Try asking a student paying 9% for his student loans how much his interest rate dropped due to Fed policy. Or ask someone paying 19.9% in credit card interest (gotta love that .1% that keeps it under 20%)--how much did your interest drop as a result of Fed policy?

Answer: zip, zero, nada. The Fed's zero interest rate policy (ZIRP)funneled profits to the banks, not to borrowers."

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

So the Obama administration saved the banking industry. That's funny. (My opinion is why bother, they should have been left to fail. Then next time around they wouldn't be so stupid with other people's money. Lehman Bros. went under and the bits and pieces were bought by Barlays and Nomura and nobody misses them. But I digress.) Who really saved the banking industry. Why the middle class and less than middle class of course. How much interest are we accruing on our savings and money market accounts? Virtually nothing if that. All the while the banks go to the FED and get their money for virtually no interest and then buy US Treasuries or loan the money back to us knowing that once again if they make bad loans you know who will bail them out again. It's a great gig if you can get . Dan S. would you be better off if you had been getting 3% on any savings you have rather than basically zero the past 4+ years, so I guess when you did your taxes and added in the amount of interest you were paid in 2013 you thanked the Obama admin. because according to you they saved the banking industry.

0

rhys jones 8 months, 2 weeks ago

One of the Fed's clever creations was "fractional reserve" banking, where banks can loan more money than they actually have, in effect creating money, diluting and devaluing the dollar, and contributing directly to inflation. We've got a tiger on our hands, folks.

0

Dan Shores 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I totally get that facts are of no use to some on the right. If in your opinion a gain of 187% in the value of the stock market since 2008 is "about the same" to you, then tu salud. The fact is that the dow closed at 8,776 on 12/31/2008 and bottomed out in March of "09, less than 2 months after the President took office, at 6,626. The dow closed yesterday 04/16/2014 at 16,424. Now I am no math major but that equates to a gain of 248%. Not bad. Since the vast majority of stocks are owned by the wealthy who are also the job creators, this should mean good news for job growth as well!

0

Harvey Lyon 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan,

I don't believe the majority of the stocks are owned by the wealthy....that's poppy cock. Pretty much anyone having a 401k owns stock. Pretty much anyone with a Union or State Retirement plan owns stock. Pretty much anyone with a life insurance policy, a homeowners policy, even an auto insurance policy owns stock. The better these investments do the lower their rates.

Many major corporations have held off growth investment in the face of uncertain economic and regulatory policy. And just last week a 8% shareholder of Walgreens initiated a shareholder initiative to move Walgreen's Corp Headquarters overseas due to tax policy here.

Under Obama most corporations have increased their bottom line by becoming more efficient, laying off people and cutting R&D. They have not increased their top lines of gross income nor made investments for the future.

1

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan,

Do prices remain constant when the money supply increases?

Do interest rates rise or fall in relation to the money supply?

Please explain. I'd like to understand your thoughts on monetary policy.

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Has anyone else noticed that Dan Shores gets answers to his questions but he only mocks questions directed toward him?

1

john bailey 8 months, 2 weeks ago

of course we do , Ken , Richard Cranium continues to hold his hands over his ears singing Kumbaya like a good little liberal. better warm that bowl up, he'll be getting hungry soon.

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I used to think that's what was going on:but recently I've developed doubts. I don't think Dan has any answers and if he started answering the very basic questions posed to him that he'd expose himself as ignorant of basic economics and civics. Those folks seem just bright enough to find the liberal talking points intuitive, but can't (and thus, won't) enter into any meaningful debate. Opposition must be mocked and then ignored for such a person to continue to be part of the 'conversation' and retain any role. What's really ironic is many of these people spent teen years 'fighting the man' and telling everyone a mind is like a parachute, all-the-while claiming to be more enlightened than others. Look at them now.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan S. says he only deals in facts. Here are some facts from a recent piece by Gary Shilling.

"It’s interesting that Barron’s ran this headline after investor sentiment shifted dramatically. It’s as if an iron curtain came down between the last trading day of 2013 and January 2014. A headline in the Feb. 5, 2014 Wall Street Journal screamed, “Turnabout on Global Outlook Darkens Mood.” As stocks flattened and then fell, people started to realize that economic growth last year was weak, rising only 1.9% from 2012 as measured by real GDP. The fourth quarter annual rate was chopped from the 3.2% “advance estimate” by the Commerce Department to 2.4%, and one percentage point of the 2.4% was due to the jump in net exports as imports fell due to domestic shale oil and natural gas replacing imported energy. Nevertheless, exports remain vulnerable to ongoing weakness in American trading partners. Also in the third quarter of 2013, 1.7 percentage points of the 4.1% growth was due to inventories. Given the disappointing Christmas sales, these were probably undesired additions to stocks and will retard growth this year as they are liquidated. Even the stated GDP numbers show this to be the slowest recovery in post-World War II history. And real median income has atypically dropped in this recovery, largely due to the slashing of labor costs by American business. Pending home sales, which are contracts signed for future closings, peaked last May and had dropped considerably before cold weather set in this past winter while housing starts fell for a third straight month in February."

And then of course there is this "fact" from Huffington Post. "No wonder so few Americans seem to think their economy is in recovery: They keep getting poorer. Unless they are rich, in which case they keep getting richer.

Median household income fell for the fifth straight year in 2012, the Census Bureau reported on Tuesday, to $51,017. That was the lowest annual income, adjusted for inflation, since 1995.

The typical American family's income has fallen every year since 2007, the year the Great Recession began, for a cumulative decline of 8.3 percent. Median income is also down 9 percent from its record high of $56,080, set two recessions ago in 1999." Of course Dan S. will deny these "facts" with more spin.

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil - Thanks for providing the link regarding Obama's remarks earlier today.

President Obama repeatedly lied about our ability to keep our insurance policy.

President Obama also repeatedly lied about our ability to keep our doctors.

I believe that in light of his pattern of repeatedly lying about Obamacare that we should evaluate his assertion of facts with skepticism.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil, I am not aware of anybody on the left or the right who disputes the president's ability to spin a yarn nor the New York Times willingness to promote it. from healthcare-now.

"A study released today on the Health Affairs blog finds that between 29.8 million and 31.0 million people will remain uninsured after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2016 and breaks down those figures by state.

The research team from Harvard Medical School and the City University of New York School of Public Health projects that the demographic composition of today’s uninsured population will change little under Obamacare.

The share of the uninsured who are U.S. citizens will rise slightly from 80 percent to 81 percent. White persons (of all ethnicities) will continue to constitute 74 percent of all uninsured Americans. About 59 percent of the uninsured will have incomes between 100 percent and 399 percent of poverty, while 27 percent will have incomes below poverty.

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at CUNY and visiting professor of medicine at Harvard, said: “Many people believe that Obamacare will cover everyone. But the reform is so deeply flawed that 30 million or more will still be uninsured after it’s fully implemented. Even if the Supreme Court hadn’t let states of the hook for Medicaid expansion, 26 million would have been uninsured."

So we have the ACA which reportedly will still leave 30 million with out insurance, has kicked many people off plans they liked, will prevent many from seeing doctors they liked, has raised costs to many people. Is this considered a success Neil? Heaven forbid what a failure would look like.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 8 months, 2 weeks ago

CRY ME A RIVER BOYZ! Why do you all find the facts so difficult to swallow? Enough needling for one day, so predictable!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil's facts, well all he has is one NY Times article, are good facts. Anybody who disagrees has bad facts regardless of the source. Sorry Neil, you really don't bring any thing to the discussion other then your snide little disses of any body who dare disagree with you.

1

Neil O'Keeffe 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, now you really hurt my feelings Dan! I gave up long ago thinking rational and reasonable arguments would carry any weight with you or most of the others here. Now, I simply take pleasure in watching you all squirm and trip over one another to prove how right you are. Thanks!

0

Ken Mauldin 8 months, 2 weeks ago

What makes you think anyone's crying, Neil? You could tone down the drama.

We're just pointing out that you're citing, and trusting, a known liar (Obama) for the information you so confidently promote.

2

john bailey 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama ? a liar ? hahahaha....good one guys....poor little lefties believe anything....

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil, Once again you have nothing but snide comments. Thanks for making my point for me. I do appreciate it.

1

Neil O'Keeffe 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Tiring and yet so amusing. Thanks again dp s *t!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Now Neil is into name calling. Beautiful. No facts just attempted insults.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil says: "I have different plans but say hello to Lucifer for all of us Steve!"

I guess the insinuation is that Steve will wind up in Hell for his beliefs while Neil and his ilk will walk the streets of gold.

He obviously imagines his ilk enjoys Divine inspiration, living far and comfortably removed from the prescence of Lucifer.

That's funny. Neil, because do you know who Obama studied under? Who's written tactics both he and Hillary follow religiously and vigorously? Of course you do NOT.

It was Saul Alinsky.

Have you read Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals, Neil? Of course you have NOT.

Have you read the author's opening acknowledgements? Of course you have NOT.

Alinsky gave "props" to the "First Radical" who "rebelled and won a kingdom of his own..."!!

Know who that was, Neil??? Of course you do NOT!

In fact, I would sincerely guess one could fill a library with things you do NOT know about those for whom you shill.

It was Lucifer, Neil. Obama's idol, Alinsky dedicated his book "Rules For Radicals" to Lucifer, Neil... L-U-C-I-F-E-R.

Does that FACT make you feel a bit stupid for supposing you ilk so far removed from Lucifer, Neil???

You may be aware of the little tid-bits of propaganda and spin which flash across whatever news/propaganda channel you read/watch, but it is obvious you are not well read. Nor are you sufficiently knowledgeable of those to whom you lend support.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"...that equates to a gain of 248%. Not bad. Since the vast majority of stocks are owned by the wealthy ..."

That's true, Dan. Obama has indeed helped the wealthy, the big banks, big corporations, big campaign donors,etc, while currency inflation is decimating the middle class.

If things are indeed as "rosy" as you claim then when, pray tell, can we wean anybody off the welfare state??? Hmmm?? Anybody at all??? Hmmm??

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Take General Electric, for example. They made $14 Billion and paid NO taxes!!

Ain't it grand to be "hooked up" with gubbamint??

Have you read about how many billions Caterpillar is holding in Swiss banks because they don't want to invest in this awesome recovery???

0

Ken Collins 8 months, 1 week ago

Dan S, you've put up a good fight. But, you are apparently arguing with people that prefer the "good ol' days" of the 50's, which aren't coming back, or the 1800's, which better not come back, or even worse, the W years. Those years of 2 bad wars, thousands of young Americans dying for a bad cause. The years that Mother Earth was under relentless attack by mining, corps, Big Coal, Big Oil and a slew of others. The years of the most evil man in America, Dick Cheney, was in power. The years that not everybody who was in love could marry. Those waning years of the W Admin that saw 400,000+ jobs/month leave and many going overseas. The years of tax cuts that has never in our history worked. (see RR and his trickle down) So you can retire from this one and live to fight the good fight again.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 1 week ago

The Bush years were worse than the 1800's ?? Even with slavery, no electricity, no telephones, no heart surgery, no air conditioning, etc???

Sometimes I think back to when I called you an idiot and I regret lumping all the other mere run-of-the-mill idiots in with you, Ken.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 1 week ago

You never did answer my question from the other thread either, Ken...

How do you reconcile your desire for more government control and more beaurecrats making arbitrary decisions, with your complaints about school officials making arbitrary decisions??

0

mark hartless 8 months, 1 week ago

Any more thoughts on Lucifer, Neil??

Read any good books lately, Neil?? Ever??

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months, 1 week ago

Ken says The Bush years were worse than the 1800's. Wasn't that thing called the Civil War in the 1800's. Over 600,000 US killed in that little conflict.

0

Ken Collins 8 months ago

Mark, I'm hurt. Not that you called me an idiot. That's your style. But you didn't use your Bartlett's Famous Quotations to say it. Am I not worthy? As far as the Civil War, when it's a justifiable war, you pay the consequences. Neither of W's were justifiable.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 8 months ago

Ken, so by your count 600,000 "justified" dead US in Civil War is "better" then some 6000 - 8000 US dead from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is an interesting piece of knowledge. Approximately 56,000 soldiers died in prison camps during civil war. Justified??? Another interesting bit of information. More than twice as many US soldiers have died in Afghanistan from 2009 to the present than from 2001 - 2008.

0

Robert Huron 8 months ago

If the Obama Administration is the worst ever than how would you classify the Bush Administration. I know most here want to pretend it never existed but may I remind you that in January 2001 the economy was in great shape. The unemployment rate was 4 %, the National Debt was $5 Trillion with a yearly surplus of $250 Million, none of our Troops were dying in foreign lands ,no one was bailing out the Bankers on Wall St etc. Where was this country in January 2009? A total disaster including the Great Recession, an $ 11 Trillion climbing Debt, unemployment at 8 % climbing, 4855 dead Troops in Iraq, $ 2 Trillion wasted in Iraq and a $780 Billion bailout for the Wall St. Bankers etc. The Conservative Government made a mess of everything just like the Liberals have. That is because both parties are owned by Corporations and the wealthy. Congress does what gets them the most money to get elected and NOT what is best for the country and its citizens. Both Bush and Obama are both honorable people who truly cared about the average citizen but it is Congress that makes the laws and has the power of the purse and they have a total different agenda. The last decade plus has been the worst but the blame is not on one man it is on all of us who elected a bunch of idiots to Congress. .

0

jerry carlton 8 months ago

Carter was the worst in my lifetime, Bush number 2, and Obama number 3 and trying harder. I look for Hillary to take over the top spot in a few short years.

0

Tim Keenan 7 months, 4 weeks ago

I'm afraid the fact that you use ACORN as a boogyman undermines your entire argument. Talk about a legitimate organization that got screwed. Too bad, because it's certainly a worthwhile argument. To me, I'd rather have welfare go to the increasing number of people who need it at the bottom than the megacorporations who don't at the top. That way, the money would be pumped back into the economy. That's not gonna happen with corporate subsidies. But I do agree that Obama has been horrible for civil liberties and the freedom of the press. And he's made a mockery of his promises to be the most transparent administration in history. And, his administration is about to be responsible for a seachange in the internet as we know it unless the vast majority prevail upon the FCC to reclassify it accordingly so it can be effectively regulated. Obama certainly strikes me as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but GWB was a wolf, period. Not sure which one is worse. Actually, I think Iraq puts W over the hump, but Obama isn't far behind.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Oh come on Robert. You know better than to lay all of that at one man's feet. America has been diggin itself into these holes for decades. Just because some of the chickens came home to roost under Bush doesn't mean he did it all by himself. You are smarter than that.

Loose fiscal policy by the Fed created the housing buble. We have been sticking our nose in other nations business under republican AND democrat presidents for decades. Government and big business has had an incestuous relationship under EVERY president in modern history.

It's total crap to blame congress and excuse the president; every law gets signed by the president; he can veto any one he wants.

The blame is indeed on the electorate, but if you think they are idiots you are sadly mistaken.

0

mark hartless 7 months, 4 weeks ago

...us who elected a bunch of idiots to Congress."

That's a good one... idiots my rear...

The people who run this country exempt themselves from the laws they pass. They enrich themselves through crooked business deals with corporate power brokers. They get insider information about which company's stocks will get smashed, and which company is about to land a sweet government contract. They get their children into the best colleges. They get the best seats at the fanciest restaurants. They always get a good "Tee time" at the country club. They get their spouses cusshy jobs like "Amdassador to Tahiti", etc. The corporate world sends legions of people to kiss their ring and beg for favors every day of their lives. They set themselves up handsome pensions that are untouchable. They use taxpayers' money to buy their own votes. If they are found to be engaged in criminal activity the worst "punishment" they face is the loss of their job. Depending on which party they are associated with, they always have +or- half the electorate defending their every action no matter how corrupt they become; no matter how criminal their actions! Then, when they finally DO get their asses kicked out of office, they call in the favors they did for decades and get themselves jobs lobbying and corrupting the new brood of vipers which replaced them.

I'd say they are pretty damn smart!! Evil? Yes, of course! Idiots??? Far from it.

The "idiots" are the American electorate which endlessly indulges these sanctified mobsters instead of casting them into the abyss.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.