True Colors: Our Post-Constitutional, Liberal Fundamentalist President

As the years go by, our president exposes more and more of his true philosophy, Liberal Fundamentalism.  This is not to be confused with liberalism or the Democratic Party.  It is a distinct extremist faith-based religion in which no rules are written and yet no compromise is acceptable. 

We need to explore this philosophy, and how better than through Obama's own words?

The problem in quotations is that individual sentences can easily be taken out of context.  To prevent this, every single word he spoke on this occasion is given, in the correct order.

This speech took place this past Sunday.

Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?

Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?

I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.

It is no revelation that people are uncertain of the future.  But in these words you can see that Obama clearly believes that the course that this country is on needs to be changed and that the problems which exist are not due to his policies.

Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

This second sentence is chilling.  Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin could have written this.  Obama is saying a lot here.  His philosophy is clear: our present system is unfair, and his solution is to change the "vision," the fundamental values and goals of America.

First and foremost, Obama states that prosperity is not shared today.  This is saying, in these few words, that the successful today are not paying taxes (sharing) and are unwilling to.  He is saying that the poor are being cheated and deserve more than they receive.

But he then attempts to blur this declarative and revert to traditional American philosophy, but his choice of words says far more than he means for them to.

I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.

Read this through twice.  The way he defines this "new" vision sounds awfully like our time-honored old one.  But he doesn't wish to change, fix, or improve America -- rather, he wishes to "create."  To create is to invent, to start over again.  Is this a poor choice of words?  I don't believe so.  What specifically is "new" about equal opportunity?  What is "new" about equal rights?  Haven't we already addressed these issues?  What needs to be created?  Shouldn't he be speaking of correcting things, not making new ones?

This is a man who has not only read the Constitution and the amendments, but given lectures on the laws resulting from them.  He is an expert, telling us our system is wrong and a new and different one is needed.

This speech is clarifying.  It discloses Obama's true colors as a post-Constitutional candidate.  He envisions an America that is very different from what we have today.  He proposes no amendments to the Constitution.  He proposes no changes of any kind.

He speaks of creating a new America with new vision.  He doesn't believe in the old vision of America.  He doesn't describe this new America except to say that the government should take more than in the past from the successful and "share" more with the unsuccessful.  He clearly denounces the old vision, America, past and present.

It is interesting how Liberal Fundamentalists never describe life under the system they propose, except in platitudes.  You would not much like a picture of the world as they would like it to be.  Take 1960s Britain.  The Beatles wrote "Taxman" about the 95% tax rate they faced, which didn't solve all the problems as it was supposed to.

In liberal utopia, there is little reward for hard work.  The government decides which companies win and lose.

In liberal utopia, political connections rule the day, because there is little in the way of democracy, since the government chooses what is right and wrong, winners and losers.  It has never worked, and it never will.

But liberal utopia is not so far away.  Go to YouTube and look up Nigel Farage for how the EU is already there.  So many in the EU now realize that it was a terrible mistake to put bureaucrats in charge.

Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pry5iL4TIa8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCYfUFUdeEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_1mF-3JTI

A bureaucrat-run country is exactly what Obama seeks.

The simple truth is that humans work best in semi-organized, legally restricted chaos.  Our founding fathers called it a free Republic.  Nothing the world has ever seen has ever worked better, but political extremists never cease to believe that they have a better way.

According to Liberal Fundamentalists, if a little government is good, then a big one is better. People cannot be trusted with making their own decisions.  After all, Liberal Fundamentalists are smarter than we common rabble, hiding behind religion-based morals and ethics.

Is this what we want for our country?

As the years go by, our president exposes more and more of his true philosophy, Liberal Fundamentalism.  This is not to be confused with liberalism or the Democratic Party.  It is a distinct extremist faith-based religion in which no rules are written and yet no compromise is acceptable. 

We need to explore this philosophy, and how better than through Obama's own words?

The problem in quotations is that individual sentences can easily be taken out of context.  To prevent this, every single word he spoke on this occasion is given, in the correct order.

This speech took place this past Sunday.

Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?

Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?

I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.

It is no revelation that people are uncertain of the future.  But in these words you can see that Obama clearly believes that the course that this country is on needs to be changed and that the problems which exist are not due to his policies.

Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

This second sentence is chilling.  Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin could have written this.  Obama is saying a lot here.  His philosophy is clear: our present system is unfair, and his solution is to change the "vision," the fundamental values and goals of America.

First and foremost, Obama states that prosperity is not shared today.  This is saying, in these few words, that the successful today are not paying taxes (sharing) and are unwilling to.  He is saying that the poor are being cheated and deserve more than they receive.

But he then attempts to blur this declarative and revert to traditional American philosophy, but his choice of words says far more than he means for them to.

I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.

Read this through twice.  The way he defines this "new" vision sounds awfully like our time-honored old one.  But he doesn't wish to change, fix, or improve America -- rather, he wishes to "create."  To create is to invent, to start over again.  Is this a poor choice of words?  I don't believe so.  What specifically is "new" about equal opportunity?  What is "new" about equal rights?  Haven't we already addressed these issues?  What needs to be created?  Shouldn't he be speaking of correcting things, not making new ones?

This is a man who has not only read the Constitution and the amendments, but given lectures on the laws resulting from them.  He is an expert, telling us our system is wrong and a new and different one is needed.

This speech is clarifying.  It discloses Obama's true colors as a post-Constitutional candidate.  He envisions an America that is very different from what we have today.  He proposes no amendments to the Constitution.  He proposes no changes of any kind.

He speaks of creating a new America with new vision.  He doesn't believe in the old vision of America.  He doesn't describe this new America except to say that the government should take more than in the past from the successful and "share" more with the unsuccessful.  He clearly denounces the old vision, America, past and present.

It is interesting how Liberal Fundamentalists never describe life under the system they propose, except in platitudes.  You would not much like a picture of the world as they would like it to be.  Take 1960s Britain.  The Beatles wrote "Taxman" about the 95% tax rate they faced, which didn't solve all the problems as it was supposed to.

In liberal utopia, there is little reward for hard work.  The government decides which companies win and lose.

In liberal utopia, political connections rule the day, because there is little in the way of democracy, since the government chooses what is right and wrong, winners and losers.  It has never worked, and it never will.

But liberal utopia is not so far away.  Go to YouTube and look up Nigel Farage for how the EU is already there.  So many in the EU now realize that it was a terrible mistake to put bureaucrats in charge.

Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pry5iL4TIa8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCYfUFUdeEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_1mF-3JTI

A bureaucrat-run country is exactly what Obama seeks.

The simple truth is that humans work best in semi-organized, legally restricted chaos.  Our founding fathers called it a free Republic.  Nothing the world has ever seen has ever worked better, but political extremists never cease to believe that they have a better way.

According to Liberal Fundamentalists, if a little government is good, then a big one is better. People cannot be trusted with making their own decisions.  After all, Liberal Fundamentalists are smarter than we common rabble, hiding behind religion-based morals and ethics.

Is this what we want for our country?