President Obama, in an interview with Harry Smith of CBS News, complained about the “vitriol” coming from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but seems to think there is no justification for their comments.  Vitriol? Strong criticism, yes, but concerning actions which can most kindly be described as “socialist,” and most accurately as “fascist.” Even “Marxist” is not far off.
A few have called him a “Nazi,” a false charge in that he cannot in any way be associated with the horrors of Nazism (unless you count his strong pro-abortion position). Anyway, neither Beck nor Limbaugh has done that. But they are quite reasonable in interpreting Obama’s actions as a deliberate attempt to weaken Americans economically so they will become more dependent on government, and to weaken America economically so that our country becomes like a European socialist nation. That seems very obvious to me. If that isn’t the plan, then this is the most economically inept administration since FDR. Of course, that’s possible too, but it can’t really explain the attempted transformation of American political and social structure. Perhaps they really believe collectivism is a better way. That’s the “Progressive” view from early in the twentieth century.
When you have the government taking control of most of the auto manufacturing industry, and now the health care, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the student loan business, it looks like fascist corporatism. Using the famous test, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck. There are some additional serious takeovers coming (if enacted), with cap and trade and other things.
As is frequently pointed out, these things are not mainly about health care, climate change, education and so on, they are about vast expansion of government power. Government wants the power to regulate everything about our lives, and just about everything touches our health care and energy use.
Mark Steyn, hosting the Rush Limbaugh Show, pointed out that by taking control of student loans, the government will have the full power to decide what kinds of courses and degree programs they are willing to finance, and what the curriculum will be. Thus statist indoctrination can be even more tightly controlled in higher education, and government can pressure people into the jobs they want them to have. 
I think what bothers Obama and liberals (socialists) the most is that the conservatives generally talk about the issues, and there are plenty to talk about. Liberals gave G.W. Bush a constant daily barrage of abuse in the media and elsewhere for his entire presidency, and it consisted mainly of name calling, ridicule, and slogans. He rarely, if ever, replied, and his surrogates weren’t forceful in their responses.
Obama doesn’t hesitate to call out his principal private citizen political critics by name. While saying he has a thick skin, he makes us wonder. Obama himself is more vitriolic than Limbaugh and Beck combined. (Examples: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun.” “Bitter clingers,” etc.) If the differences were over some normal bill or other, whether this or that many billions is appropriate, the debate would be at a lower volume level. What’s being argued now is the very continuation of our Republic.
Obama and his allies daily rip and stomp the Constitution they are supposedly sworn to protect, preserve, and defend. Congressmen claim they don’t know how the health care bill is allowed under the Constitution, but that they think it is. Obama, supposedly a constitutional scholar, appears to know or care even less. I just hope that the judges remember that we have a constitution when these health care lawsuits get into court. 
Is anger confined to talk radio hosts and media pundits? In a CNS News story about a Rasmussen poll of likely voters, it is reported, “Perhaps the most startling finding in the survey is that 70 percent of voters say they are angry with the policies of the federal government, with 48 percent saying they are ‘very angry.’” 
That many people are not moved to anger simply by conservative media. They are angry because their representatives refuse to represent them and the president ignores their opposition to major government policies.
To Mr. Obama: If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There is anger, but it isn’t Rush Limbaugh’s or Glenn Beck’s fault. It’s your fault, along with your advisors and congressional allies.
If it weren’t for strong partisanship, past and present, we’d already be enslaved. Mr. Obama knows that the sooner the level of criticism dies down, the sooner he can proceed unimpeded with his fascist, unconstitutional grand plan. And if he is successful, it will take generations to undo the damage, if indeed it can be undone.
 Brett Michael Dykes, “Obama says Beck, Limbaugh fuel 'troublesome' political climate,” 04/02/2010, The Newsroom, a Yahoo! News Blog.
 Mark Steyn, audio: “Federalization of College Loans,” 03/30/2010, RushLimbaugh.com.
 For a discussion of the unconstitutionality of the personal mandate to buy health insurance, see Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano, “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional,” 12/09/2009, The Heritage Foundation.
 Joe Schoffstall, “More Voters Than Ever View Obama as a ‘Partisan Democrat’; 70 percent of Voters ‘Angry’ with Government Policies,” 04/01/2010, CNSNews.com.