Obama's Objective is Transforming an Unjust America, Not Economic Growth or Averting a Recession

RUSH: So building on the program from yesterday, if you didn't hear yesterday's program, go to RushLimbaugh.com to get caught up, 'cause I can't repeat it. For those of you that were here, I'm gonna build a little bit on yesterday. I'm watching all of the talk from everybody, learned pundits, learned analysts, elected officials, and virtually everybody, and they're all discussing this fiscal cliff issue. Identically the same. They are all analyzing it through the same prism. They're all looking at it as though it's no different than any other budget negotiation in the history of the country in the budget. But I keep hearing something that genuinely puzzles me.

And it's this. Republicans have more leverage than they know. You know why? I'll tell you why. It's said that Republicans have more leverage than they know because Obama, he doesn't want a second recession. He already had one of those in his first term, and now he's in his second term, and now he's gotta be concerned about his legacy, and there's no way that Barack Obama wants a second recession to kick off his second term because that won't look good on his legacy.

I'm dumbfounded by this. I'm perplexed. I am totally confused, because I need somebody to explain to me why Obama cares about not having a recession in his second term. Where is the evidence that Barack Obama cares about economic growth in the sense that you and I care about it? We have four years. And don't tell me the debt deal in 2010 when Obama wanted to perpetuate, continue the Bush tax rates. That was not about economic growth. That was about Obama's reelection. Barack Obama has stated since before he was elected, he stated during his campaign in 2007-2008, he stated in years prior that his objective is to transform the United States. He wants to turn this nation into a welfare state because, to him, that is what is fairness.

This country was founded unjustly and immorally by a bunch of elite white guys who founded the nation in a system to perpetuate people like them, in wealth and in power, in perpetuity. And in the process, minorities and people of color and indigenous peoples everywhere, nonwhites were given the shaft and never had a chance to succeed in this country. The game's been rigged since the founding. His objective is to change that. He's made no bones about it. If you're Barack Obama, your objective is to totally transform the country and you are in the middle of successfully pulling that off, why would you be worried about something like a recession? Isn't, in fact, perhaps a recession or more chaos exactly what you would want?

If your objective is to transform the country, if your objective is redistribution of wealth, if your objective is to destroy the traditional definitions of how prosperity is created in this country, if your objective is to change this country at its root, why would you be worried? My contention would be that Obama is looking at his legacy not in the same way that all of the people in Washington, for all of these years, are looking at second term or presidential legacies. Fifty years from now, do you think Obama is gonna be worried about what's written? "Yeah, recession in his second term, horrible economy." Do you think that's what Obama's aiming for?

I think Obama is looking for historians to write about the historic transformation of this country. The ultimate shattering of capitalism. That's the legacy he's seeking. Would somebody explain to me why Obama is still campaigning? I think he's interested in growth, but he wants government growth. He wants growth of the state. The state can only grow one way, and that is if you take money away from the private sector, from individuals. He is hell-bent on raising taxes on everybody. And the reason for that is that it shrinks the private sector and grows government, and that's what his objective is. That's growth to him.

If he were really interested in economic growth, prosperity for all, the way you and I and apparently everybody in Washington understands it, then he'd be negotiating, he'd be trying to come up with a deal that makes sense for economic growth. Instead he's campaigning for what he wants. He's still campaigning.

By the way, there's unemployment news today. Somebody needs to get hold of Reuters and remind them, "Hey, you know what? You won. You don't have to continue to do stories showing 399,000 applications for unemployment is good news". But they're doing it, because they're in a perpetual campaign mode because Obama's continuing to try to sell what he wants to do. He got reelected with it. Would somebody show me the evidence in the first term that Barack Obama is interested in economic growth as you and I understand it? I'm serious. Don't misunderstand. My passion here is not anger. I'm not angry at anybody. I'm just looking and listening to all this.

Before the election, if you'll recall, the learned figures like F. Chuck Todd and others in the Drive-By talked about Obama has not really put forth a plan to deal with the debt. Well, there's a reason: He doesn't have a plan to deal with the debt because his only objective with the debt is not to worry about it. Could somebody explain to me, somebody show me where Obama has, at any time, formulated policy or made statements that would successfully reduce the annual budget deficit or the overall national debt? It's just the opposite.

Everything Obama is doing, everything he has done, everything he says he wants to do, everything he proposes will grow the debt. Everything. That reality is right in front of our face. That reality, by the way, was approved of by the American people who voted, a majority of the people in this country who voted reelected Barack Obama on exactly this premise. Do not believe that the people who voted for Obama were fooled. Just like it would be a mistake to believe that the people in California who voted to raise taxes on themselves are fooled. They aren't. They are voting for what they want. So did the people who voted in the presidential race a few weeks ago, the majority of whom voted for what they want. They are voting for a country to be transformed and changed to where the government is the primary source of wealth or prosperity or survivability, however you want to describe it.

RUSH: You know, I would love to be wrong. I'd love to be wrong about the fact that Obama wants to transform this country into something like Europe. I would love to be wrong about that. I would love to be wrong about the fact that Obama's trying to destroy capitalism.

I would love to be wrong about the fact that Obama is trying to reform and retransform this country into something other than the way it was founded. I just don't see any evidence of that, is my only problem. I see the Obamacare legislation. I see the stimulus. I see the executive orders. I see the Fast and Furious. He does everything he can do to undermine all the institutions and traditions that have made this country great. I look at his enemies list, and it's all the wealth creators and producers -- including small businesses.

Those are the people that are in his crosshairs. I don't see him friendly to the people or the institutions that have defined this country's greatness. I see a guy who's apologized for this country all over the world. I see a guy who doesn't care about four dead Americans. For seven hours, nobody could account for where he was during that firefight in Benghazi. So Susan Rice becomes a convenient distraction, and nobody asks, "Where's Obama?" during all this.

His chosen guy, Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, has just established himself as a pharaoh. Obama will not denounce it. But he'll somehow denounce what the Israelis do. I'd love to be wrong about all this. But if Obama's gonna take this country over... And I think he wants the cliff. I think going over the cliff is the Democrat agenda, and it's not ours, and that's why we shouldn't be in the car when it's going over the cliff. He should be driving.

RUSH: Last night on the Fox News Channel Special Report with Bret Baier, Dr. Krauthammer opined that "Republicans have more bargaining power in this process than meets the eye, because President Obama 'wants a successful second term' and 'if it starts by going over the cliff, it starts with a second recession, two million unemployed, and a wrecked second term.'"

That's what I'm not so sure about, because Obama didn't care about any of that in the first term. Everything that happened in the first term Obama wanted to happen, folks. I don't quite see what's so difficult to ascertain about this. See, I believe that going over the cliff is the Democrat Party's agenda. I believe tax increases on everybody is the Democrat Party agenda, including the middle class. They don't talk about that. They talk about tax increases on the rich, but everybody's taxes are going up thanks to a whole bunch of things, including Obamacare and wait 'til they get involved with the Alternative Minimum Tax or the value-added tax, which may come later.

To me, it's all academic. In fact, I think for the Democrat Party, the way they look at things, going over the cliff is a win-win. Where are the American people right now? What just happened, folks? Big government just got reelected. Big government, Santa Claus, just got reelected by people who were not fooled. Ergo, will people be disappointed if they get more of it? More and more people look to government as the source of what they have. Why would they be upset if government grows? They wouldn't. They weren't upset about it prior to the election. What has changed since November 5th or 6th, whatever the date was?

So if we go over the cliff, what happens? What's on the table? Tax increases for everybody. The Bush tax rates expire. And I know Obama's out there, the Democrats, "Ah, we need to rein in that Bush tax cut on the middle class. We need to keep it in place." I know you're shouting, "Rush, 2010, 2010, Obama, he had a chance to go over the cliff and --" That's my point. If you're gonna call the bluff, call the bluff, and you call the bluff by pulling out of the negotiations. The Democrats are talking about, "We gotta maintain the Bush tax rates for 98% of the people," and Obama's out there saying, "I want to do that, too, but I'm not gonna stop 'til I get my tax increases on the rich." And the Republicans, "Well, you're not gonna get that unless you're suspending cuts." So the Democrats, "Okay, we'll cut Medicare ten years from now," and if things stay true to form, Republicans will say, "Deal."

I'm sorry. I don't want more of the same. I don't want phantom spending cuts that never happen, when real tax increases are gonna happen tomorrow and maybe be retroactive. I listen to Democrats, I believe what they say. And I paid attention to the election results, and I think what's on the table, the fiscal cliff, what is it? It's the result of the debt limit deal. They came to an agreement and what did they say? They put such onerous future activity on the table, no party would dare want to go to the brink. And here's what it was. In exchange for raising the debt limit the last time, the Bush tax cuts go away, which is tax increases for everybody, massive defense budget cuts happen, all kinds of other horrible things happen, and the theory is, they're so horrible that neither party will let any of it happen, and it'll force 'em back to the table, and they'll come to a last-minute deal, and everybody will be happy. And Washington will experience fundamental change.

RUSH: Look, folks, don't misunderstand. Obama clearly cares about his legacy. It's just not a legacy you and I think of presidents caring about. His legacy... He wants to be thought of, in the world media and at the UN, as a great socialist. His legacy... He can't wait to have it written. He is the one who brought the United States to its knees. He is the one who converted it from this unfair, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, evil, capitalist, militaristic empire into a wonderful, free, fair nation.

That's the legacy he's looking for. You think he cares about unemployment? Show me the evidence that he cares about unemployment. Show me the evidence he cares about people in the Northeast after Hurricane Sandy. Show me the evidence. "Well, Rush, that sounds really hard." No, it's not hard. It's right in front of your face. All you gotta do is admit it.

RUSH: Here's Steve in Baltimore. Steve, welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush, for taking my call. I'm a 19-year-listener, first-time caller.

CALLER: Let me take it away. Every time, the Democrats set the Republicans up for a lose-lose situation. It doesn't matter if we do something or don't do something. We lose. It's time we turn the tables and make it a win-win situation, and here's what I mean. The reason we lost the election is not because we didn't get the Hispanic vote or the women vote or the minority vote. We lost because we didn't have enough Republicans out there voting for Romney.

I learned my lesson back in '92 when I voted for Perot by mistake never, ever thinking that the country would be stupid enough to elect Clinton. I wanted to protest vote against Bush and it backfired. I've learned my lesson. Obviously there's not enough people who have learned their lesson. The Republicans need to do nothing. They need to stand up and say, "No, we're doing the conservative thing. We want the Bush cuts to go through for everyone or no one," and here's why I think let 'em go through for everybody.

RUSH: Wait, wait. See, this is where you just... I'm sorry. I have to step in here. It's so callous and so grating and mean to hear, "The poor are not paying their fair share." Don't you understand? This country was built on the backs of the poor! Everything the poor had has been taken from them, and it built this country, and it's time it was returned to them. And that's what Obama's about. Come on! Wake up.

“REBUILD AMERICA ON A NEW FOUNDATION”

Remember THAT!? (2008)

And since that time I keep promoting an old FR thread, about an even older conservative booklet called “The Revolution Was”, written in 1938 about FDR and the New Deal. It is ALL happening again - amazingly, chillingly so. Only worse. (I wish I could get this to RUSH).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts

An Excerpt:

Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.

But it could not be so embarrassed and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme. It took off from a revolutionary base.

The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technic it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake......

Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse.

The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.

The end held constantly in view was power.

I think Obama is looking for historians to write about the historic transformation of this country. The ultimate shattering of capitalism. That’s the legacy he’s seeking.

If my study of human nature is anywhere near correct, Obama’s legacy is more likely going to be the ultimate affirmation that Capitalism is the best system for Human Beings in the long run.

Thanks for that excerpt, and the link to "The Revolution Was".

I keep yelling at people to quit fussing over belly-button lint and seashells, and look at this apocalyptic genocidal tsunami coming ashore that is going to destroy everything in its path.

The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.
The end held constantly in view was power.

The start of the Cloward-Piven strategy of orchestrated crisis was in the sixties. They were just rehashing what FDR did. And today we see it so much quicker with our instant media.

Global-warming crisis
healthcare crisis
mortgage crisis
401k crisis
Student loan crisis

If one sets aside an hour to read that entire booklet it is amazing how much of what is said can be heard in Obama’s speeches - often the very same words and phrases that FDR used.

They are using FDR as the model, but like his top financial guru wrote: FDR just didn’t go far enough which is why the Depression lasted so long.

FDR just didn’t go far enough which is why the Depression lasted so long.

I believe FDR, and especially Eleanor (who was the real genocidal maniac of the two), intended to starve Americans in numbers to rival Stalin in the Ukraine and elsewhere.

When Hitler invaded the Sudentland in Autumn of 1938, they decided a world war would thin the herd just as well as starvation. FDR pushed for US entry into the war until the Japs gave him the excuse he needed in Dec 1941.

...we could have regained the majority in the Senate (if lucky even the super majority) and could remove him from office after the House impeaches him ...

Sadly-agreeing-with-you bump.

When speaking of the People, it's important to remember a couple of things:

One, the Roman inscription SPQR stood for "Senatus Populusque Romanus", "the Senate and the People of Rome". Now, the populus did not include the proletariat, who were mostly parvenu arrivals from the countryside or places far away, representing the peoples of Italy and southern Europe. They were not Romans, but hill tribesmen, Etruscans, Greeks, ex-slaves from everywhere.

The Populus was the register of the tribes of Rome (Ramnes, Tities, Luceres), whose span included, at the next level of social organization, the great clans of the Roman patriciate and plebeian Romans: the Clan Valeria, Clan Julia, Clan Furia, Clan Junia, Clan Cornelia, and so on. The clan names were the middle name of proper Romans bearing the "three names", the tria nomina, as Quintus Fabius Pictor, Marcus Junius Pera, Marcus Terentius Varro. The first name was personal, the third familial (Clan Fabia included the Fabii Buteones, the Fabii Maximi, the Fabii Labeones, and other branches of the family besides the aforementioned Pictor) and sometimes a nickname; and names added on to the end, fourth and fifth names, were either nicknames given by acquaintances and family (Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, one of the Catilinarian conspirators -- the Lentuli were a family, and "Sura" was a nick, given him after a "there's a story about that" incident, meaning "shinbone"), or honorific epithets given by society in memory of a significant achievement: Africanus, Gallicus, Germanicus, Creticus, Isauricus, Censorinus; or sometimes an indicator of either a place of origin (Gallus, Atticus, Ligustinus) or of a former status, if a freedman or an adopted son, e.g. Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (adopted from the Clan Aemilia) Africanus (destroyer of Carthage).

The point is, Two, that the Romans were a People not a mob, and the Mob was never the People.

Point.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.