Thanks, Dragonfighter. I've been a bit under the weather this evening and just checked back in.
The problem with "fundamentally changing" the country is that Obama has implied (through the examples above and with suggested legislation) that the representative republic is no longer a viable way of governing. I know Bush 43 had tons of appointed czars, just like Obama, but I didn't agree with him either, after his 2nd year in office. The czars are just one cog in the machine that slowly (evolution, not revolution) changes the thrust of the power vectors (for lack of a better term) of the governed and those who govern.
Right now, in theory, we are in charge. We tell our representatives what to do, and if they don't, we vote them out. Obama is moving to a governing-by-appointees paradigm. OSHA wanting to redefine health and safety to include firearm regulation. It doesn't matter who you elect once these governmental departments start regulating - then it becomes institutional. Here are 2 links on the OSHA nominee. They are from last year, but they illustrate the point of what Obama is trying to do:
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/17/os ... e-peddler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-sh ... be-stopped" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a link that says why he's against reparations: because once they are paid, then some will say "we've paid our debt" and not do any more:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=483402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It then explains why nationalized health care is an expansion on the idea of reparations. It doesn't matter if he is descended from a slave family or not, what matters is
the constituency that wants to hear about reparations. I think it also begins to cover your questions on wealth redistribution.
Back to transforming the country. I have gotten over my Glenn Beck fever, but he did make some very good points not too long ago about progressives, and Obama has self-identified himself as one (about 7 paragraphs down in this article, which may also answer some of your other questions):
http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One doesn't need to amend the constitution to get one's way - one can regulate things out of existence. Did you see the article concerning public fishing and how it may go away because of a federal Task Force?
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(It may be a bit alarmist, but you know what they say about the camel's nose in the tent.)
This is what I mean by being wary of Obama's pledge of "fundamentally transforming the country". Once power is out of the hands of the elected (and the electorate, by extension) decisions are made by the faceless bureaucrats, and there is nothing you can do about it. Ever fought with the people on the phone at a credit card company? National bank? Student loan company? "I'm sorry, that's just the way it is." Get ready for that response to all your questions about why you can no longer buy a firearm, since the National Health Care Agency in Charge of Your Health has deemed them to be a health hazard. Sure, Amendment #2 is still there, but it is rendered meaningless by governmental fiat.
And yes, end-of-life decisions are made now by the faceless bureaucrats in our insurance companies, but if we were given the option to buy insurance across state lines, we may get away from that by increased competition. There is no option once the government becomes the single-payer in the health care system. If I don't like my provider, I can change to another one. Sure, it may cost more, but so does a home in a nicer neighborhood, or a Noveske over a DPMS. It is all about tradeoffs, and I don't want the government telling me what my (one) option is, I want to decide from a menu of options.
If you want, I'll dig for some more stuff tomorrow, but I think this gives you a few answers to the questions you posed above.
That is something of a red herring at any rate since there might be a handful of people who's great grandparents were descendant of slaves but they would be rare if extant at all. It would be likened to me getting reparations from the queen of England for the subjugation of Ireland by Charles I.