Rush Limbaugh Was Right

[Obama Tells Military To Fire On American Citizens]

There should have been something for everyone in President
Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. For liberals, a full-
throated call to arms. For conservatives, vindication.

Obama settled once and for all the debate over his place on the
political spectrum and his political designs. He’s an unabashed
liberal determined to shift our politics and our country
irrevocably to the left. In other words, Obama’s foes — if you
put aside the birthers and sundry other lunatics — always had
him pegged correctly.

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura
Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by
reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters,
for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully
worked out.

Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the
left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most
liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008
primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along.
They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about
“fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and
discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent
salesmanship.

They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the
press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant
and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the
arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his
column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared
finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he
has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”

Paul Krugman, also of The New York Times, wrote blog posts over
the past few years titled “Obama the Moderate” and “Obama the
Moderate Conservative.” For Krugman, Obama could never have
proved himself a liberal short of an order to liquidate the
kulaks. Even he, though, wrote of the second inaugural: “Obama
has never been this clear before about what he stands for.”

After years of portraying Obama as cautiously picking through
warmed-over Republican ideas, an Eisenhower Republican miscast
by his opponents as a liberal ideologue, Obama’s allies exulted
in his open embrace of liberal ideology.

The media, as a general matter, loved the speech. They praised
Obama’s post-partisanship and now they praise his post-post-
partisanship. They aren’t strictly contradicting themselves
because the content is the same. In his old post-partisan phase,
the president passed a nearly $1 trillion stimulus, a universal
health care bill sought by the left for decades and a massive
regulation of Wall Street. All prior to his “liberation.”

One theory is that Obama has been forced into his unabashed
liberalism by the irrational recalcitrance of Republicans. But
you don’t advance a philosophically cogent view of American
history in an inaugural address in a fit of pique. It wasn’t
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who made Obama believe
that progressivism somehow represents the logical outgrowth of
the American founding. It wasn’t House Speaker John Boehner who
made him weave Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security into the
flag as the 51st, 52nd and 53rd stars.

Yes, Obama would have preferred to pass his agenda with
Republican votes. That wouldn’t have made the agenda any
different or changed his conviction that History with a capital
“H” runs in one direction — toward more government and social
liberalism. If anything, it would have re-enforced his belief
that his remaining opponents were outside the mainstream and
deserving only of his pity or his scorn.

Obama is making his play, as the newest cliché goes, to become
the liberal Reagan. As soon as he won reelection, we went from
the Obama administration to the Obama years, and that is no mean
feat. Becoming an enduringly transformational figure like
Reagan, though, is a different proposition. He will have to
leave office adored. He will have to cement his legacy by
winning a de facto third term. His big policies will have to
work, as Reagan’s did in winning the Cold War and reviving the
economy.

For all of the ideological ambition of his second inaugural, the
policy agenda was thin or unachievable. Reducing wait-times at
the polls isn’t a major item. At the federal level, gay marriage
is largely up to the courts. He will get much less on guns than
he wants and probably nothing significant from Congress on
climate change. His best chance for a breakthrough is on
immigration, which divides Republicans.

The virtue of the address was making his intentions
unmistakable, although Rush Limbaugh never mistook them in the
first place.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-was-right-
86641.html?hp=l3
--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the
outlaw Obama administration?

No. Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a
controlled rate of aimed fire.