It is open line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh show and a caller makes the case that there is no hope to defeat Obama. So Rush asks him, "do you think that the administration will continue to deficit spend and that the debt will continue to grow?" to which the caller replies yes! Rush follow up with a second question asking "do you think that the administration tax policies and spending policies will continue to cause the private sector to shrink?, and again the caller agrees.

Rush can not understand why when a majority of people think the country is getting worse why anyone would believe that Obama could get elected to three terms. Rush doesn't reject the callers position, he seems genuinely interested in understanding because if everything is true to form, this shouldn't be possible. Rush worked this point with a number of questions, but even though the callers conclusions didn't seem to jive with what the "polls" indicated should happen the caller was unswayed by the questions. And the caller continued to see worsening scenarios that Obama would somehow turn to his advantage.

Let me offer a suggestion.
1. A lot of people think their jobs or their income depend on the government, and so we focus on "liberalism" or "Progressive socialism", maybe even blame "big government" advocates and we posture our policy against these things.
2. A majority of the population earns at least a part of their income from the government so they vote Democrat supposedly. We think this is bribery of the lazy and we posture our party against this idea.
3. We see the Democrats giving rewards to what we think are single issue voters, such as amnesty for illegals, or Gay marriage, and many would have us posture our party NOT to oppose these things, or worse, are engaged in a public brawl over what we should do.

We have decided that Obama is a big government, liberal supported by progressive socialists, and that the policies of socialist liberalism dictate Obama's action. In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. And that is Obama's camouflage. He kinda of looks like what we think we should see, so we never get a true outline of what really motivates Obama's actions.

Red State voters should understand this. You are all familiar with the hunter, dressed in his Mossy Oaks, standing along the wooded edge of a field, floating along in his hide boat, or waiting patiently in his tree stand for the right shot. His prey in the mean time is cautiously looking around, and his eyes glancing over our camouflaged hunter see what they want to see, so the prey reacts accordingly. Seeing nothing unusual it continues on the course that will reward the hunter.

People see what they want to see. Obama knows that. Each time the Obama administration does something (such as abandoning the defense of DOMA but not overturning the laws) he creates barriers. He isolates and oppresses in the name of "freedom". Granting this charter as a personal license, Obama creates a loyal "virtual fiefdom" of followers who have much to loose by his departure. But this too can be misinterpreted. It is assumed this is a bribe, but in fact it is a "gilded cage". For there is no freedom, except that which Obama grants. And that which Obama grants, Obama can take away. This is kinda of like socialism, but not. It is kinda of liberal, but it is not. It is something else. Because socialism theoretically is about collective power, not personal power, and liberalism is about freedom from government power, not the concentration of power in a single person's control.

President Obama is not a communist, socialist, or liberal. I am not sure that he is even a statist. Though like the Mossy Oak camouflage he wears a cloak that can be mistaken for all these things.
Obama is something else. I have an idea what that is, but I would like you to name it.

If we can name the threat we might defeat the camouflage, and exposed it should be obvious that there is no one safe from Obama, especially not for those that Obama "rewards".

Can you tell me what we should call this?


L'État, c'est moi - Attributed to Louis XIV