Finished? I Don’t Think So.

As Rush Limbaugh asserted on his radio show Wednesday, the Obama presidency is far from over.

The events to which we are witness presently– world unrest, trampling on personal property rights and State sovereigntyassault on affordable energy–continuous assaults on our ability to grow our economy– is all part of Obama’s original campaign promise to “..fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

I know I’ve said this before, but it’s an important phrase to ponder. “FUNDAMENTALLY” TRANSFORM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” Think about that. Let that short, simple, yet all-encompassing phrase sink in. First focus on the word “TRANSFORM” and then the root word of “FUNDAMENTALLY.”

To “transform” something, by definition, is to make something evolve into something radically different from what it has traditionally been. “Fundamental” by definition is a defining, basic characteristic. A building block–something foundational to its being.

Now, to “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” means to radically transform the United States from what it has traditionally been– the “shining city on a hill”- the land of opportunity–based on the premise of individual liberty and the affordance of self-determination–yes–to transform that– into something *fundamentally different* and thus diametrically opposed to that foundation.

The Third World Despots, the Kruschevs, the Fidel Castros, the Kim Jong Ils and Uns of the world, have given hours-long speeches about their hopes for the destruction of the Free World, but never have they been able to put it so succinctly and eloquently as has Obama in that one simple, yet profound phrase. “..We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Many people chalked that phrase to meaningless boilerplate rhetoric, as so much rhetorical fluff. But of all the promises Obama made that were broken, whether it was closing Guantanamo Bay, allowing people to ‘keep their doctors or their health plans–period,” or to decrease health insurance costs by $2500 per year, this– this seminal promise–(along with bankrupting the coal industry)–was the one he meant from the bottom of his joyless, cavernous heart.

No people. The Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is not ended. He still has a lot of ‘fundamental transformations’ to perform.

Barack Obama’s “scorched earth” policy against America and its people has only just begun.

5 thoughts on “Finished? I Don’t Think So.

  1. Cluster June 19, 2014 / 11:31 am

    It is astonishing that more people didn’t pay attention to those words uttered by “the one they have all been waiting for” – and ironically, it was Obama himself that said – “words matter”

    Yes they do!

    Rush’s theory is also spot on and that is that Obama is always acting as if he is an outsider and working to “correct the problems”.

  2. Cluster June 19, 2014 / 7:48 pm

    Here is the progressive rebuttal:

    Obama’s “troubling” phrase was merely a piece of boilerplate campaign rhetoric. In full context, he makes it crystal clear what kind of transformation he’s talking about: from decades of broken politics, greed, irresponsibility, and failed politics to jobs and rewards for the middle class.

    Proving once again that if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. (Note: this response comes from someone who calls himself an agnostic athiest).

    So let’s examine this . First of all, this is very specific language to be considered “boilerplate campaign rhetoric”. Secondly, it’s an indictment on America and every administration including Bill Clinton’s, Jimmy Carter’s, etc.. It’s a declaration that those President’s, their administrations, and America as a whole have been unfair and unjust, a belief of which is obviously at the core of Obama and progressive thought. (Ironically, Obama, of all people, declares America to be unfair considering he and his wife’s privileged background.)

    But now let’s get to the substance of the statement.

    Decades of broken politics? – Are you kidding? Obama’s politics are broken beyond recognition.
    Greed? – Can you say solar industry crony capitalism?
    Irresponsibility? – Has Obama taken responsibility for anything yet?
    Failed politics? – Do you really want to go there?

    • Amazona June 20, 2014 / 12:23 am

      “….to jobs and rewards for the middle class.”

      Rewards for the middle class?


      So typical of what passes for thought and political philosophy in the RRL. Starting with the assumption that it would take a “fundamental transformation” of America to provide jobs for the middle class, when all it would really take would be for the federal government to follow its own Constitution and stop trying to micromanage the middle class, and the whole damned country for that matter, to further its nonstop pursuit of one social engineering scheme after another.

      But really, folks—-REWARDS for the middle class? Really? You mean like awards for just showing up? This has to be one of the stupidest comments ever, and this is saying a lot given the source, which is (I assume) one of the trolls who used to infest this site.

      But it does show the mindset—-that it is the responsibility of government to decide who gets “rewards” and for what, and to hand them out.


      • Cluster June 20, 2014 / 8:12 am

        This mindset is important to keep in mind as we had into the 2016 election. Let’s just take it on face value that most progressives buy into that “fundamental transformation” of creating jobs, eliminating greed and incompetence and politics as usual. Well? Where are the results? More people are out of the workforce now than there were 6 years ago. Average family incomes are down. GDP shrank last quarter. And the Obama administration can easily be argued and demonstrated as one of the most incompetent administrations in history. Yet this progressive, and many others, are still firmly in Obama’s camp, and worse yet, like their leader, blame others for his results.

        I think this is important to point out because Hillary is going to run on the same, empty, emotional rhetoric. And her results will be equally, if not more so, abysmal. We have a large progressive constituency in this country who operate entirely on false constructs of their opponents, who engage from a disturbing false sense of self superiority, who are hyper sensitive over manufactured issues, and of whom choose not to hold any of their representatives accountable for actual results. This is a phenomena that we need to acknowledge and one of which our conservative candidates need to be aware of.

      • Amazona June 20, 2014 / 9:32 am

        I think most of the conservative candidates understand this, though there are far too many who run the exact campaigns run by their Progressive opponents, merely with an R after their names instead of a D.

        We have gone over this quite a bit on this blog—-the belief in the mainstream Left that mouthing platitudes about things is the same thing as doing something, and conveys the same sense of accomplishment that actual action would.

        Very few people in this country are drawn to the Left because they have given the matter a lot of serious thought and decided that the Leftist, massive Central Authority, model is a better way to run the country than the Constitutional model of a federal government tightly reined in regarding its allowed size and scope of power. On the contrary, we see it here all the time—the outrage, the indignation, the huffery-puffery of the Left when it is pointed out that they support a system which is antithetical to our Constitution. They can do this, and probably believe every word, because they have never done the objective analysis of the workings of the two systems, the differences between them, much less the history of their successes and failures when applied.

        (They remind me of the time a couple of puffed-up snobs, who used to go to a very fine restaurant where I was the manager, asked about the soup of the day. When told what it was the wife sniffed “Eeuww—-I hate potato soup. Just have them bring me the vichyssoise.”)

        As I have pointed out, most of those who support the Left in this country do so because the Left has quite cleverly and successfully played upon two of man’s greatest weaknesses—–the need of some to feel superior to others without having to do any heavy lifting to earn the feeling, and a core of inherent meanness of spirit that craves, and thrives on, expressing hostility and nastiness but wants this validated and rebranded as political fervor.

        The Left recognizes these weaknesses and plays to them, quite effectively. So we are faced with millions of people who think that assuming the stance of merely being AGAINST certain things, such as “greed”, makes them morally superior. This is augmented by the corollary—that anyone who does not agree with them for any reason is then, by definition, FOR “greed” and deserving of all the hate and vitriol that surge up from their souls, looking for an outlet but yearning for an outlet that can be identified as anything other than the personality disorder that is their source.

        And here we have the average Lefty in America—seething with carefully stoked rage, spewing it against a designated Other because this target lets them posture not as the hostile offensive creeps society would once have branded them but as righteous fighters for good, proved by the mouthing of platitudes.

        There are degrees of this pathology. Many do not have the need to express ugliness and hatred so they don’t, for example, prowl the Internet looking for targets for their vitriol. But they still fall victim to the mentality that says merely posturing as being FOR something defined for them as “good” means they are “good”. This is quite powerful, as seen by otherwise decent people, like Spook’s daughter, who didn’t really believe that the Right was waging a WAR ON WOMEN !!!!! but still craved the sensation of being against such a thing and inclusion in the group that stands in her mind for being against such a thing.

        As long as we allow our politics to be defined by “moral issues” we feed this kind of non-thinking allegiance with whichever side is emotionally associated with the “good” side of the issue. But if we step away from that, we can moderate the emotional aspect of political allegiance, by focusing on the actual blueprint for government that should be the basis for our political decisions anyway.

Comments are closed.