J Smithson knows what Obama meant with these words: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

<<<<<   Since before the '08 election,  Obama has been working for this end:  On July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only 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."

Prefatory:  in this posting we get to Obama's revolutionary intent (above) beginning with his decision to slash and burn his [Romney] opposition.  

Text

Does Obama have to campaign negatively simple because his opponent is doing the same?  No.  So,  why is he doing so?  Here is the context for what is going on and you need to know this.  

In 2008,  we could arguably make the case that Obama,  in the face of negative campaigning coming from supporters of John McCain,  did not resort to a negative strategy on a par seem today.  His orders to the media was for a more civil campaign,  and,  generally speaking,  the Compliant Media obeyed. 

Independents were turned on by this feigned civility,  and he won that election by a substantial margin. 

So,  why has Obmaa decided to do just the opposite in this campaign?  During this campaign season,  Obama has already aired 37,000 televised campaign ads, 90% of which are personal attacks against Romney.   Why the change,  what happened?  There are two answers.  

Generally speaking,  you need to understand that since the 2008 campaign,  Obama has been relentless in his  establishment of class envy.  His attack on Romney is rooted in his disregard for the profit minded upper/middle class.  His childish emphasis on "fairness"  trumps the need - in his mind -  to use commonly held financial strategies for ending the recession and is used to blame those who own wealth.  He believes that he has successfully divided the nation and can win on that strength.  For the first time in our history,  we may be looking at an election between the have's and the have-nots.  

Specifically,  the answer is rather obvious;  what happened was his four-year record.  It was not what the American people were promised.  It is not what they wanted.  They wanted to make money and save money.  They wanted jobs.  They wanted to participate in the American Dream.  Instead,  his plans did not create a jobs recovery. There are 3 million fewer job positions available today,  than when he began in 2008.  There are 8 million fewer workers than when he began.   He even told us,  "Now is not the time to save."  The majority opinion as always been against his version of health care reform.  In the place of the American Dream,  he has been set on establishing a Utopian Dream that goes far beyond commonsense and financial realities.  

And the sad truth of the matter is this:  there is much more to come should he win re-election.   

The first two years,  he ruled with his party,  as an imperialist president would. 

Imperialism:  The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations and peoples. 

His last two years,  when not campaigning,  has been the rule of a rogue president,  committed to transforming this nation into a socialist state via wealth distribution. Understand that with this man,  there will be no “lame duck presidency.”  He will be effecting change  through his last day in office. 

His tools,  his process?  Well,  he believes that he has enough of a foundation in place to act as a dictator.

His intentions?  To revamp or limit the free market capitalist system that has been in place for 230 years via regulations that are under his command.  Those include the EPA which believes it has legislative approval to function without juridical review,  OSHA regulations, the SEC as it enforces Dodd/Frank, controls CEO wage and bonus packages,  and revisits/invigorates the Affordable Housing program that got this nation in the mess it is in the first place.  He intends to use the IRS to enforce his new ObamaCare Tax  Act with 16,000 new members of his version of the Gustapo  (and you will get no apologies from me for using that term).  He has the power of  “executive order” and intends to use this power as he circumvents Congress including his own party membership and “executive privilege” to build upon the layers of “opaqueness”  he has already put in place.  He has an Attorney General that will enforce his orders and prosecute those who dare to disagree.  He has more than 30 “czars” in place,  complete with staff members,  offices,  transportation office supplies.  He has a willing media, one that cares no more for the Constitutional values of the past 240 than does Obama.  This past year,  he took the occasion to strengthen the practice of “martial law,”  a power reserved for [only] the president of the United States.  Let’s not forget that he is also the Commander And Chief the Armed Forces. 

In other words,  Obama has taken the past four years and put into place his own mini-government that may be more powerful than the government of the people.  

During the 2008 campaign,  Obama made a statement that absolutely no one dealt  --  except this editor.  I have featured this statement more than 20 times over the past several years.  If the above is not a demonstrable explanation for this statement,  nothing is. 

On July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only 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."

If you  have a better explanation,  I want to hear it.