"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 chose to take him at his word. Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself 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.
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 chose to take him at his word. Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself 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 America" I 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 liberties. Says 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. Nowhere as free, at least, as it was at the time when 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 in fact 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 may be, 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.
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 rallies. 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 sic the military on 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.