BO, bin Laden, and "Fundamental Transformation"

Okay, now that the easily understood national glee at the death of bin Laden is starting to subside, I thought I’d chime in with some observations about this president and his character.  And why we should all be very very worried.  (see? aren’t you glad I didn’t post immediately and wet blanket the moment?)  People are getting swept up in the moment, carried along in a manufactured moment of national unity (just like the farce this administration made of the Arizona shooting memorial service/pep rally/campaign stop).  Was no one stunned when BO started talking about national unity?  From a man who has spent the last two years creating the greatest divides in my lifetime?  A man who wields the dual weapons of race and class warfare as easily and naturally as most of us say “please” and “thank you.”  A man whose presidency has spawned a deeply-divisive, sharply bitter partisanship in this nation’s people (far beyond the hallowed halls of Congress and the executive branch), a divide so vehement and so widespread that it makes the Bush years look like a kumbaya summer camp.

I get that people are credit where credit is due-ing this guy (it’s because we are basically good people, people who look for the good in others . . . even if we have to squint really hard and stare into murky space for ages to find it), but let’s stop and think about all this.

Remember when BO was strutting around (before his strut became more of a shuffle-and-lurch) in 2008 and proclaiming that he would ignore Pahhhhkistahhn as our sometime but definitely on paper ally and, without their knowledge or approval, stage military strikes or whatever it took within their borders?  Remember how everyone said that was naive, at best (that link goes to Firedoglake, the home of suddenly war-mongering progressives who cheer this president’s violation of Pakistani sovereignty, but they did the work of finding relevant 2008 quotes from Bush, McCain, and Palin).  And remember how he stubbornly stuck to his guns, promising to violate any and all agreements and laws, international or U. N., to get bin Laden?  And remember how that just seemed so strange, particularly coming from someone who spends most of his time burbling endlessly about how America is actually just the nifty but benevolent military and economic arm of the new world order international order he envisions?

Remember how we all marveled at his transparent hypocrisy (the only thing that is actually transparent about this administration): he holds up the need to humble America, disarm, diminish, bankrupt, and humiliate her on the one hand, but then promises to use every ounce of her considerable power to achieve his goal?  Even if that means ignoring the sovereignty of a nation to do it?  Can you even begin to imagine the horrified shrieks of “murderer!,” “war monger,” the accusations of hubris and arrogance, and who knows what if it had been President Bush who unilaterally authorized, on ally soil, a military operation that can only have been a kill mission?  There would be no cheers from the left, no songs of praise, no dancing in the street.  There would be condemnation and calls for his removal from office. 

I’m certainly not arguing here that getting bin Laden was bad, or that it was anything but necessary, or even that performing that mission without informing or getting permission from Pakistan was necessarily wrong.  What I am arguing here is that it reveals, yet again, the contradictions in this president’s worldview and the heartless pursuit of his own ends at the expense of any and everything. He bypassed Congress to (illegally, according to the laws of this land and our Constitution) go to war (er, “kinetic military action”) with Libya, with a far smaller coalition that President Bush had for Iraq.  BO ignored the clear will of the people in forcing that health care monstrosity on the American people in what can, in its strictly partisan passage, only be considered an affront to the American Constitution, its governance, and we, the people.  He has repeatedly used strong-arm tactics, bribes, elaborate plots, intimidation, and bullying to get his way.  Has there ever been a less-principled, more aggressively corrupt, self-aggrandizing administration (in this country, I mean)?  I think not.  Certainly not in my lifetime.

So ask yourselves this:  given what we now know about BO’s disdain and contempt (even dripping hatred) for America and her citizens, the moves this administration has taken to demonize and label conservative, Christian patriots as “terrorists,” do you sleep more soundly knowing that he will stop at nothing to destroy his enemy (and that you and I are among his enemies who must be punished), that no treaty, no U. N. power, no human rights laws, indeed, no law of any land (including both our own and even the international law he favors . . . when it suits him) will stop him?

Some big picture parting questions to ponder: What is BO’s ultimate vision of a “fundamentally transformed” America?  Where do you think you fit into that?  How will he achieve it?

And on a less-weighty note:  how long before the increased terror threat (in the wake of possible, I’d say likely, retaliation for the death of bin Laden) is used as an excuse to further limit, even eliminate, our civil rights?  Isn’t this just the impetus needed to fulfill Nappy the Tyrant‘s promise to roll out TSA gropers and molesters to shopping malls, train/bus/metro/ferry stations, and sports arenas?  How long before he gets his internet kill switch, his gun bans for law-abiding Americans, his silencing of the conservative media, indeed of any dissenting voice

How long before he gets his wish and fundamentally transforms America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the oppressed and the home of the cowed?


11 thoughts on “BO, bin Laden, and "Fundamental Transformation"

  1. Dear Fuzzy,

    Why the hell are you not writing for a well read national conservative publication? The way I see it, you are ripe for the picking! What do Ya think America?

    Once again you have put into plain English what the rest of us can barely voclize, let alone write.

    The only thing that would be questionable for national publication would be, “Nappy the Tyrant” We all remember how Don Imus was almost destroyed by using part of that statement to describe some female basketball players. Not that I admire or even like Mr. Imus.

    Well done Fuzzy, well done!

    Lock & Load!!!
    Sons & Daughters of Liberty Unite!!!

  2. I second what L said. You need to be writing at National Review or some publication like that. Have you considered submitting to American Thinker? They accept submissions.

    First off, I want to say how proud I am of our intelligence community, our military and especially the SEAL team that did the grim work of putting down that mad dog. I was in the military on 9/11 and I've been to the sandbox, so I take this stuff personally.

    Obama could be accused of doing what the left accused Bush of:

    Beating war drums to stir patriotism and dampen criticism so he can kill civil liberties at home.

    I think an even larger question is, is the government machine so large that it chugs inexorably forward, steamrollering everything in it's path, regardless of who the titular head is?

  3. I agree with what you saying about his policies, but I am going to give him credit here. It was not an easy decision to make. It seems like it would be, but to go in the way he did had a great deal of risk. If it had gone bad it would have been a disater for him politically. Let's be honest here most, if not all, of our presidents put everything in terms of politics. Had seals been killed and didn't get him his presidency would have been all but over. No different than what happened to Carter in Iran. I am quite stunned he didn't take the easy way and use a drone.

    Now, I would still never vote for him, but I will give him kudos for this choice. I can add this to my very scant list of things I like about him.

    We just need to hold out for another 18 months and if we don't get a new president I can't imagine we won't have a GOP led senate and house. That will neuter him if by some chance he is re elected.

  4. National unity for Obama is when conservatives climb quietly into the back of the socialist bus and “shut up”.

    Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

  5. I am in complete agreement with your argument. I am willing to admit that I was one of those “giving credit when due” for the president’s decision—but that was before I learned that he “agonized” over this decision for sixteen hours [source]. He forced the operators to “hold” while he “slept” on his decision. It has to be the longest 3 a.m. telephone in US history. And then I recall how long it took Obama to approve our actions against Somali pirates … and voila! A pattern emerges. Now I’m taking back my “credit when due” views and wonder aloud … once more, “How in the hell did we ever get stuck with this guy?”

    I also agree with L and Silver … you should be writing for Townhall.

  6. Posts like this are why I follow this blog. I was one of those who used his own bastion of free speech to report on the then-unconfirmed death of OBL,and like most around the nation was experiencing a head rush the likes of which I'd never felt before. I'm still celebrating, to be honest, but now I've got a bit of a clear head to go with my feelings of victory. Fuzzy, you're absolutely right in that we still have to watch what this guy does like the proverbial hawk. I didn't like how he took almost sole credit for the mission in his speech the night OBL was confirmed dead, either.

  7. Valid points all. obama is a lot more dangerous than he looks.

    And I now have No Hope that the repubblekin House will stand in the way of anything the dems want to do.

    Yes Questions:

    – Given the repubs are useless at best, Will Americans vote in a majority of real tea party people. Will enough tea party people even run?
    – will the tea partiers cause real change? (gag me with 'spending cuts' and 'fiscal responsibility', see next point)
    – will they turn back the dem agenda, or will the dems, after a brief stint of repubblekin control, just pick up where they left off and send us the rest of the way into full socialism (we may be there already) and soft communism.
    Radio Free America. Imagine that.

    I know it's depressing but understanding the problem is step 1.

  8. Speaking of iron-fisted governance, you forgot using the NLRB to fight Boeing opening a plant in South Carolina. And ignoring a court order to not regulate the internet. And strong-arming a bankruptcy judge to give union allies a better deal int the GM bankruptcy, etc, etc.

    Unifier or violator? You be the judge!

  9. @L, aw, thanks! And I think I can call her “Nappy” because she's white. I'm actually not sure what the current rules are on this (and oddly enough don't care, hee!).

    @Silverfiddle, thanks 🙂 The government just gets bigger and bigger under every president, every Congress, everyone. We have to not just stop that but reverse it.

    @JACG, I get giving him credit, but given his devotion to Alinsky, it would be completely acceptable to hold him to his own standards. No one is doing that. It needs to be done, if for no other reason than to reign him. His disregard for the rule of law is appalling and very dangerous. We can't pretend that he's a patriot or that he cares about America; we know that's not true. So we have an unAmerican, America-hating president who has zero respect for any boundaries, any law. And no principles at all. To him a Southern Baptist is just the same, exactly the same, as an al Queda terrorist. That should worry everyone. A lot.

    @Opus, hope not, but I'm not sure what to make of conservatives defending BO. He'd be the first one to call for President Bush's immediate removal from office.

    @Mustang, aw, thanks 🙂 I think the WH calculated that the right would defend him in the name of defending America, and they were right.

    @CC, thanks! 🙂 His trying to take sole credit was a miscalculation on the part of the WH (and why he decided NOT to give a speech at Ground Zero–they realized it wasn't working, so they scrapped that part).

    @Vineyard, if we don't, we're done. That's the bottom line.

    @Kid, he is indeed more dangerous than he looks. The current republican house won't, no. That's why we need to keep sending in reinforcement, replacing both dems and useless repubs with real fiscal conservatives. This will take many years, in the meantime, we can only keep their feet to the fire and hope they can keep too much further damage from happening.

    @Ted, yeah, I linked to the NLRB strong-arming Boeing, but I did omit the GM thing. There are so many “little” things that all add up to a very unpleasant picture for America–both in the short and long term.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s