Obama's transformation of the U.S.

President Obama has been in full campaign mode for about nine months now. Foxnews noted the frequency of fundraisers:

The president has been engaged in somewhat of a fundraising frenzy lately, having held roughly 100 events this election cycle. That's twice as many held by former President George W. Bush at this point in his 2004 reelection battle, and more than three times former President Bill Clinton's total in the 1996 cycle.

In one of the latest fundraising events Obama invoked Mandela and Gandhi in appeal for second term. The surprise of Fox that "Obama compared himself to Gandhi, Mandela!" are anachronistic. Reporting that Obama arrogantly compares himself to great historical figures (Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King), is like a "dog bites man" headline - trite line, lacking in novelty.

There was something important beneath the surface of Obama's words:

Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela–what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.

In addition to the sweeping arrogance of this comparison in Obama's appeal at the fundraiser the is a reference to his promise to "fundamental transform" the U.S.A made in 2008. Obama used Reverend Wright's words "A white man's greed run a world in need" in one of his books. In an unguarded moment before the election Obama opined that "when you spread the money around, it's good for everyone." In other words Obama believes in government redistribution, and a managed economy.

There's a bigger point here. A nod to the progressive Illuminati who came to the fundraiser that Obama believes the current system of government of the U.S. is fundamentally unfair and comparable to the colonialism in India or the apartheid in the South Africa.

That is the question that everybody fears to touch - is Obama's redistribution policies have a well-hidden racial motivation. Mandela, Gandhi - they were transformational emancipators who fought against dominance of the whites against blacks and Indians. This country has emancipated blacks. Women have received suffrage almost a hundred years ago. Gay, lesbian, transgender any many other groups have protection so solid it borders on over-zealousness. Who is left to emancipate? If we're not emancipating anyone, what are we transforming?

If there was a logical way to explain the preference for black over white by the Obama administration, including the U.S. Justice department (see black panther case) it would have been made already. Placing whites from the head of the line to its back is what "social justice" is all about for Obama.

What "social justice" pretends to be

Obama's rhetoric lends support to the view that he finds that he prefers "social justice" to plain, universal justice through equality before the law. He seems to be playing to the favoritism of progressives in general - including other groups, such as women, gays, "workers"/unions, etc.

Intelligently, Obama has not attempted to put this issue high on his agenda. In his second term Obama's transformation make take 'affirmative action' (I hate that lying euphemism with a passion) and pushing it towards reparations for slavery. It's unlikely Obama would overtly institute reparations in his second term (if we're so unfortunate as to deserve one), but he could certainly "spread the money around" in other ways, where "social justice" with racial overtones will dominate.

What "social justice" really is

What Obama promised was a completion of his socio-economic ;transformation based on redistribution, such as public investment in Fannie and Freddie, banks, automakers, and last, but not least - healthcare.

If my concerns about racial overtones of Obama's redistributional policies are overblown, where's the "fundamental transformation" if not in centralized planning of the economy?

Having been born in Moscow, I am a U.S. citizen by choice, and although I see many flaws nowadays, the system as envisioned and preserved by the U.S. Constitution is better than any other. The fundamentals are great. Market economies consistently outperform planned economies. The problem is the malignant growth of human corruption on this solid foundation that hides behind euphemisms like "social justice" and is driving this great country towards a socio-economic suicide.

As another aside, I live close to Salem, where the famous witch trials took place. That is an example of "social justice" from the 17th century. It is arrogant to think that modern "social justice" will be more just, however. Sure, we don't burn people these days. Still, "social justice" to "justice" what "mob rule" is to "rule" - each combination is a contradiction in terms. Rule of the mob is just cruel anarchy of a pack before it the stability of dictatorial rule of the strongest. There's another connection between the two pairs of terms above -"social justice" is "mob rule" in that it is the dictatorship of the majority (or the strongest faction) who hypocritically claim privilege the deny to others, and is the weak-point of any democratic system.

Dems says: "Social Justice is not
socialism" 

Obama's choice of leaders to compare himself with clearly shows he sees himself fighting against a fundamental social injustice, which in the USA is primarily racial injustice. The Democrats like to pretend that "social justice is not socialism". In case of Obama that is true to a degree: his "social justice" is more about racism than socialism.

Unfortunately for Obama, the U.S. Constitution, based of the foundation of plain "justice", without regard to the social niceties is in the way of his transformation. This summer, the U.S. see the first engagement in this epic battle over the country's soul and future when the Constitutionality of Obamacare is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Obama does get re-elected for a second term despite his performance he will be emboldened. How much further will he then go to make "social" justice the dominant form of justice in the U.S. when he no longer is limited by concerns over re-election?