Barack Obama has had one unchanging personal goal- to alter America. He wants to change America
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
He wants to remake America:
“we’ve begun the work of remaking America.”
Most frightening of all, Obama wants to “transform America”
“We are 5 days from fundamentally transforming America”
Change America. Transform America. Remake America.
The question is- into what?
It is the question the answer to which the media dares not seek.
And the answer, as noted by Dinesh D’Sousa, is into a socialist state- regardless of what Obama asserts.
In his movie 2016 D’Sousa notes with no small irony that Obama’s book is titled Dreams From My Father, not Dreams Of My Father. This strongly suggests that the father’s dreams are the dreams of the son. Barack Obama Sr. was a Marxist.
All of Obama Jr.’s mentors were Communists, Marxists and Socialists: Frank Marshall Davis, Roberto Unger, Bill Ayers, Edward Said.
A murderer’s row of anti-Americans.
One cannot possibly be steeped in such an anti-American milieu for so long and not have it soak into your soul.
Yet you can mask it with a smile. That smile allows the main stream media to deny what is right before their eyes- this country elected its first socialist while thinking it was making a cultural statement. Obama knew he was playing them and all he had to do was smile.
The media ignored his history. They ignored his upbringing. They ignored his environment. They saw what they wanted to see- a racial Messiah.
They are still in denial. Were they to ask the proper questions now would be to expose themselves to the racism assault that greets every single criticism of Obama.
Obamacare was not so much a reform of health care as it is government control of 17% of the economy.
It’s all there- the slogan “Forward” was adopted from Stalin, “spread it around,” “fairness” (Lenin’s campaign theme).
Obama said it himself:
“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
The Framers decided what government could not do to you, but Obama wants the opposite- he wants government to be able to force you to do things.
And here it is again
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
Liberals are drooling at the possibility of seeing the fruits of those who work on their dinner table but without the work- liberals such as Peggy Joseph:
Bankers? They’re Obama’s financial useful idiots.
In 2016 Dinesh D’Sousa interviewed an elderly man from Barack Obama Sr’s village- a man who knew both Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. When asked if they shared the same philosophies, the man held up his hand with one forefinger extended and said
“They are one.”
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on America.