You are on page 1of 124

The Obama File


Frederick B. Meekins

Copyright 2010 by Frederick B. Meekins

Leftist Evangelicals Demand Believers Get On
Obama Bandwagon?

Just because some white liberals are going out of their

way to vote for Barack Obama for no other reason than that
he happens to be half-black, some within the Evangelical
leadership are once again beating on their drums about
congregations being too split along racial and ethnic lines.
However, if they are the ones noticing this, isn’t that
proof that those patting themselves on the back for their
embrace of racial diversity are in fact the ones looking at the
color of skin rather than the content of character?
So long as a church sticks to Bible basics and
welcomes those showing up at the front door, what does it
really matter if a particular congregation appeals more to a
particular group of people?
Has anyone ever stopped to think that, provided so
long as no one is blatantly mistreated or rights to affiliate and
peaceably assemble infringed upon, maybe God is pleased?
After all, it is believed He is the one that caused different
racial and ethnic groups to come about to begin with as a
protection against the human tendency to unify and lavish
accolades upon pseudo-messiahs.
Before Evangelicals rally behind Obamaism as some
kind of miracle cure to a contrived problem more in the
minds of elites than actual practice, perhaps they should take
a look at the kind of ecclesiology many of Obama’s
supporters in leftist theological ranks would impose upon
Though someone cannot be held accountable for every
inappropriate comment that might fly out of the mouth of
their pastor, there comes a point where if the congregant
does not disassociate himself from a particular church by
either speaking out against incorrect doctrine or, even better
yet, by taking their religious dollar elsewhere, it essentially
means that one is tacitly endorsing the stances taken by a
particular ministry.
If that is the case, then those taking seriously the
notion that the Gospel message is for all of mankind really
need to take a look at the sort of thing Mr. Obama has no
problems allowing to slide by (like the Che flag hanging in
one of his offices) for nearly 20 years and even more closely
at the heretical poisons poised to infiltrate the nation’s
houses of worship.
According to a transcript of the March 2, 2007 edition
of Hannity and Colmes, the church where Obama attends
does not promote universal values but is rather distinct in
standing up for the “Black family” (not just families) and the
Black value system (not universal values).
It should also be pointed out that this so-called “Black
value system” heralded by religious liberals does not consist
exactly of the same character traits the rest of us may be use
to hearing from the pulpit week after week. The things
making up the foundation of Obama’s worldview sound like
they come more from the pages of the Communist Manifesto
rather than the verses of Holy Scripture.
For example, prior to having its seditious radicalism
exposed in the broader media, the website of Trinity United

Church of Christ provided a ten point program which
included some of the following points.
“A congregation working towards ECONOMIC
PARITY.” Ladies and gentleman, this is code for
confiscatory socialism. I wonder if Obama’s friends in
emergent church circles and the like are willing to surrender
their bank accounts and property or like most of their other
demands, that is something to be imposed upon we doofuses
sitting in the pews.
“A congregation seeking RECONCILIATION.” That
may sound nice, but in liberal circles that doesn’t mean
everyone striving to be polite to one another despite past
hurt feelings. Rather this means that Whites are suppose to
stand up and ring their hands for being “White devils” (as
Lousi Farrakhan, a good friend of the pastor of this church
by the way, calls Caucasians) and to dig into our pockets to
fork out reparations payments.
“A congregation with a non-negotiable
COMMITMENT TO AFRICA” because as the preamble to
this document reads before it mysteriously disappeared from
the church's website, “Africa is ‘our native land‘.”. Well, if
you are going to harp on the need for multi-ethnic
congregations, why should Caucasians care about Africa as
it is not our native land. If you were born here, that
distinction belongs to the United States.
Frankly, why would any white person want to subject
themselves to such nonsense? Furthermore, if a church
propounded the so-called “White family” and so-called
“White values”, wouldn’t it be lambasted as crypto-Nazi and
the presidential hopes of anyone holding membership in such

a den of doctrinal iniquity rightfully dashed?

Obama Artist A Vandalizer

When I heard during a NCIS marathon on USA
Network during one of those "Characters Welcome"
segments that the individual coloring that creepy
Communist-looking Obama "Hope" poster was a "street
artist", I figured that was just an euphemism for graffiti
It has now been reported that the artist has been
arrested on charges likely related to that particular form of
urban mischief.
Ironically, some praising this hoodlum would applaud
him as more of an artist than Norman Rockwell or Thomas
Kincaid who both actually drew and painted things that
actually looked like things rather than toss a dab of color on
something and claim it was theirs.
Rather fitting the artist heralded as embodying the
spirit and values of the Obama administration would be
someone with almost no respect for private property
Wonder if his opulent benefactors would be as
enthusiastic if it was their property being spray painted?

Does Winfrey Ride The Beast?

At one point in her career, Oprah Winfrey was pretty

much seen as a harmless crank as the casual viewer catching
the show in passing assumed that the program dealt primarily

with her seesawiing weight and whether or not her shackup
might secretly prefer to be paid in three dollar bills.
However, as she has amassed considerable power and
influence during her 20 plus years in the public limelight, this
broadcaster is no longer an innocent afternoon distraction
filling the time between when one arrives home from work
and when dinner is set on the table but rather has
intentionally set out to subvert American culture and the
spiritual well being of the nation.
Not content with the worlds of television, publishing
and politics now that she has taken an interest in Barack
Obama only because he happens to be Black, Winfrey has
now set out to establish her web presence as well.
According to the March 3, 2008 edition of USA Today in an
article titled “World Is Oprah’s Classroom”, Winfrey plans
to lead an online interactive book discussion.
However, there is more to the book being studied than
the typical feminist drivel one would expect women of the
upper income bracket to be sitting around and reading. The
title of the book alone is enough to send a chill down the
The book is titled A New Earth: Awakening To Your
Life’s Purpose by Eckhart Tolle. It is through this text that
Winfrey hopes to be the False Prophet to Obama’s Pseudo-
According to USA Today, “Winfrey calls the book ‘a
wake up call for the entire planet...It helps distance ourselves
from our egos, which of course, we all have, and to open
ourselves to a higher self, which he [the book’s author] calls
consciousness’.” As with most New Age bunk, it all

basically boils down to socialism, no doubt reeking of the
smell of dope and unwashed hippies.
For when the likes of Winfrey and her literary vassal
Eckhart Tolle criticize ego, they are not really talking about
curbing their own arrogance or astonishing appetites.
Because if they really did want to downplay notoriety of the
self, why did the author even put his name on the book and
accept the proceeds from the royalties?
Though it is doubtful that Obama and Winfrey are the
Psuedo-Messiah and False Prophet, from the philosophy
promoted in her webcasts, one could very well make the
argument that the Old Deluder and his minions pulling the
world strings behind the scenes are no doubt using the duo
as a test run for the future global delusion.
According to the USA Today article, Tolle’s
philosophy includes “Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic
influences’,” yet he is not “offering a religion or set of
beliefs, but appeals to peoples of different faiths or no faith
at all.” However, Tolle (as well as Winfrey for that matter)
fancies himself as a “spiritual teacher”.
If anyone falls for this, that what Eckhart and Winfrey
are offering up is not inherently religious, I have a bridge to
sell them or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. By
claiming to be dogma free (itself a dogma), what Tolle hopes
to accomplish is to unify as many as possible under a single
banner of the flavor of the moment --- be that of Obama and
Winfrey for the time being or a duo far more ominous once
the powers that be are through with them.
From this, one is very much reminded of the Great
Harlot mentioned in the Book of Revelation that conditions

the world into embracing the Devil’s chosen one but who is
herself betrayed by the Beast once he solidifies his power.
Those interested by what Winfrey and Tolle have to
offer can get a more in depth introduction through an exert of
the text posted in the lifestyle section of The
following analysis is from a portion titled “A New Earth by
Eckhart Tolle (Part 1).”
The gist of the text is the wonder that will come about
once more and more of us reach the threshold of
enlightenment, defined by Tolle as “...a leap to an entirely
different level of Being and, most importantly, a lessening of
materiality.” Akin to punctuated equilibrium or the hopeful
monster theory in biology where the evolutionists hope to
cover their tails (both prehensile and otherwise), by claiming
such advancements just occur spontaneously without leaving
any proof behind, Tolle claims this state can come about as a
result of ”discontinuity in its development”(thus only
available initially to a select elite). In the plant world, this is
a likened to the first flower.
However, in humanity the process is more
existentially profound and contemplative as enlightenment
occurs when one becomes aware of “...the underlying one
Life, one Consciousness”. When enough people realize this,
a “...profound shift in the planetary consciousness that is
destined to take place in the human species” will occur.
It is through this monistic pantheism that New Agers
or expanding perception types will be able to justify the
deprivations they plan to inflict upon the remainder of
humanity while continuing to enjoy their standard of living.
Since Oprah is “every woman” as her theme song arrogantly

intoned one season, she feels well within the bounds of
propriety to tell the average person subsisting on ramen
noodles several nights a week that their lifestyle is “too
materialistic” whereas she vacations on David Copperfield’s
private island resort for $24,000 per night.
Since Oprah is our avatar and embodiment of the
collective consciousness, it is actually her metaphysical
obligation to wallow in such luxury and up to us to provide a
similar standard of recreation for her minions in government
such as Senator Obama.
More importantly, by undermining individuality as in
the case of Hinduistic New Age spirituality (atman is
brahman) by claming that we are just a temporary cellular
manifestation of the One Consciousness, when the time
comes those accustomed to this mindset won’t have all that
much of a problem with mass roundups and ultimately
executions of those doing nothing more than questioning the
worldview of those holding power. After all, one does not
lament the removal of an infected hangnail or the cutting of
hair since such an act benefits the overall body --- or as in
the case of the global community --- the "One
Consciousness" as Tolle calls it.
Such wayward intellects, according to Tolle, have
failed to evolve to the point of enlightenment and “identify
only with their own physical and psychological form”. Thus,
for the sake of the COMMUNITY, it is imperative that such
impediments be removed. Besides, doing such really
wouldn’t be wrong (a concept itself outdated and bigoted
since transcendent absolute standards don’t exist anyway)
since distinct individuals don’t really exist and by hastening

their return to the universal consciousness one may in fact be
doing them a favor by expediting them onwards towards
their next incarnation.
Progressives will no doubt ridicule conservatives
speculating how close Obama, Winfrey, and their crowd
might be to the revelation of the psuedo-messiah foretold in
the pages of Scripture. However, it probably wasn’t a
conservative artist that painted for the cover of Rolling Stone
magazine a portrait of the Senator with the kind of reverence
that has traditionally characterized depictions of Christ nor
was it a conservative that appointed Oprah as the herald of
the so-called “new spirituality”.

Schaeffer Progeny Kneels At The Feet Of

Afrosupremacist Pastor

Charged with relaying the truth of God as revealed

through Holy Scripture and rationally applied to more
contemporary specific situations through theology, ministers
face the unique challenge of uplifting those aspects of culture
and society that are in accord with what the Lord intended
for mankind while admonishing or criticizing those aspects
of human institutions and individual behavior that fall short.
As fallen beings themselves stained by the same sin nature
plaguing each and every one of us, it can be easy for those
aspiring for recognition as mouthpieces of the divine to
substitute their own agendas and predilections as God’s own
clearly defined will. That is why it is imperative for believers
making up these respective congregations --- whether they
be sitting in a traditional pew, listening over the airwaves, or

even reading a book --- to do their duty not only as Bereans
but also as the sons of Issachar by examining the ideas
espoused, the implications of these ideas upon the future,
and the underlying worldview of the individual expositing
Sometimes, our closeness to an individual prevents us
from seeing an individual as they truly are. Usually, this
causes us to gloss over the faults of our loved ones to
remember them in a light probably a bit better than they
really were as love covers over a multitude of sins.
However, the very opposite can also take place if
something causes a relationship to become strained and if we
are not careful the minor faults we all struggle with can
cause us to look back upon those we were once fond of in an
almost criminal light. This may be the perceptual trap Frank
Schaeffer, son of the late apologist Francis Schaeffer, has
fallen into when he claims his own father was worse than
Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright according to a
March 21, 2008 article titled “Francis
Schaeffer’s Son: ‘Dad worse than Obama’s pastor’.”
When such a claim is made, those valuing discernment
must examine the statements made by the disputed clergy in
question and dig deeper into the underlying worldview of
each. It is only by doing so that the concerned Christian can
determine whether or not the rhetoric under examination falls
outside the pale of acceptable orthodoxy.
Most of the Schaeffer lad’s allegations center around
the charge that his father was at least as anti-American as
Jeremiah Wright and that conservative Christians should be
criticized for condemning one of these thinkers while

embracing the other largely as one of the primary
philosophical supports for the cultural engagement of the
Evangelical Right. Central to this debate is what each of
these theologians believed would bring the judgment of God
upon the United States and why such retribution had been
According to Schaeffer the Younger, inexcusable
comments made by his father include the following:
condemning abortion, reserving the right of the people to one
day revolt as a last resort against a tyrannical government
that abridges God-given rights that would otherwise allow
the politically active to work for change within the system,
and that the right to bear arms as expressed by the Second
Amendment serves as a mechanism whereby those in
government ought to be made to think twice about infringing
upon the rights of the people. The Schaeffer offspring also
thinks it is unconscionable that his father dared to point out
that philosophically very little separated the America
secularist system of public education and the Soviet model.
Apparently in the eyes of Frank Schaeffer, the truth is
not much of a defense. His problem may not so much be
with his father as with the Founding Fathers. The elder
Schaeffer was merely echoing in A Christian Manifesto
many of the ideas forming the foundation of this great
If it is wrong to view the Second Amendment as an
“insurance policy” against unlawful intrusions of government
power, does that mean that the younger Schaeffer would
stand around with a smile on his face while operatives from
the government take his property and rape his wife? It was

this kind of unbiblical perversion of government that Franky
Schaeffer’s father spent the last years of his life warning
O such horrible things --- the right to worship God
freely, the right to be secure in one’s own person and
property, and keeping the government within clearly
specified boundaries so that it is strong enough to protect us
from those that would do us harm while not making it so
strong that it becomes a harmful parasite sucking our God
given liberties away from us. Now let’s examine the kind of
things believed by Franky Schaeffer’s new best friend Rev.
Jeremiah Wright.
For starters, Wright holds to the theory that the United
States developed the AIDS virus to maintain dominance over
the Third World. Scientists and theoreticians could probably
debate as to the origins of the pestilence, but doesn’t saying
it was targeted at a specific set of foreign countries
undermine the deaths of the many Americans the disease has
claimed? Furthermore, isn’t AIDS a rather inefficient means
of genocide since to avoid getting it all one has to do for the
most part is to keep one’s pants on?
Most brainwashed today by government officials and
leftwing propagandists into believing that firearms are evil
by default rather than a neutral tool taking on the motives
and characteristics of the individuals wielding them will have
trouble swallowing the distinction between Schaeffer’s
defense of the use of force over any that might be advocated
by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, there is a world of
difference when it comes down to just whom these two
would be aiming at and why.

In his condemnation of certain aspects of government
and society, Francis Schaeffer was calling upon a defense of
the individual created in the image of God possessing rights
no institution or other individual has the right to infringe
upon. As such, under “Schafferianism” it does not matter
what color you are.
The ideology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is much
different. In his thinking and those like him, one’s value is
not determined as a distinct individual made in the image of
God but rather as part of a larger group or COMMUNITY.
One can see this in his hostility towards America in general
and Whites in particular largely through the company he has
often kept.
If you examine Wright’s associations carefully, one
sees he does not oppose violence per say but apparently only
when it is America or Western powers that have resorted to
force in pursuit of policy objectives. Wright certainly has no
qualms about those advocating and using violence against
Americans and our national interest. For example, it has
been documented that Wright thinks highly of Louis
Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
What is it exactly that Farrakhan and his sect believe?
Quite a bit more than selling pecan pies and newspapers on
metropolitan street corners.
For starters, Nation of Islam doctrine postulates that
White people are an inferior race genetically engineered by
an ancient mad scientist. The Nation of Islam also contends
that a UFO-like vehicle is circling the earth to whisk away
Black folks and to rain down nuclear annihilation on the
White ones left behind for no other reason than that they

happen to be White.
So why is it, ladies and gentleman, that liberal
malcontents of various stripes will stand around and applaud
this kind of foolishness when it is directed against Whites yet
condemn it with such vehemence when such blather flows
from the lips of the Ku Klux Klan to the point that it is those
professing tolerance and understanding that actually
perpetrate these days the acts of mayhem and destruction at
Klan rallies rather than the Klan nitwits.
Wright’s association with Farrakhan does not stop at
the level of a friendly “what’s up” as they pass each other on
the Chicago streets. Wright actually accompanied Farrakhan
to visit Muammar Qaddafi. For Americans that have
forgotten since the Libyan leader has buried himself in the
sand for awhile hoping most won’t notice him, before the
advent of Al Qadea and Osama Bin Laden, Qaddafi spent
many years atop terrorism’s superstar list.
This is not Wright’s only endorsement of Western
civilization’s Islamist enemies. In his church bulletin, Wright
ran an op-ed written by a high-level Hamas functionary.
Ladies and gentleman, what kind of pastor worthy of
respect as such is going to hang out with and lend credence
to the ideas of such human debris? Some modernist and
postmodernists will whine, “Well, Jesus went to the
publicans and sinners.”
That is correct. However, Wright was not ministering
to those in the Arab street whom most leftists believe we are
to pander these days in terms of our foreign policy. Rather,
Wright is expressing a sympathy for those whose ultimate
goal is nothing short of the destruction of human liberty and

freedom as understood in a traditional context.
Wright is able to get up there and condemn the use of
force on the part of the U.S. government through its armed
forces while lavishing accolades upon scumbag tyrants and
terrorists because Wright is a proponent of liberation
theology. Essentially what that is is revolutionary socialism
or Communism dressed up in a religious garb.
According to Marxist doctrine, there is nothing wrong
whatsoever with the use of force if it is used to appropriate
property from those deemed unworthy of utilizing it
according to the vanguard of the proletariat or whoever else
occupies that distinction these days such as radicalized
minorities, environmentalists, or home owner associations.
In fact to some revolutionaries these days, such acts are not
even categorized as acts of violence as evidenced by World
Bank protestor-types who insist they are nonviolent despite
the looting, vandalism, and destruction of property for which
those in this movement have become synonymous.
Liberals, especially White ones, have flocked to the
Obama banner in part to pat themselves on the back just to
show how progressive they are by backing a Black
candidate. In so doing, they freely embrace all of the anti-
American baggage that makes up the foundation of Barack
Obama’s worldview. When either marauding mobs or
minions of the state come to take what’s Whitey’s in the
years and decades to come, it will be interesting to see if the
younger Schaeffer comes back around to his father’s way of
thinking or that he has grown so accustomed to his role that
he cannot be described as anything other than a useful idiot.

And Will Obama Save Us From Our Sins?:
Adoration Of Candidate Borders On The
Fanatically Frightening

As the United States edges ever closer to tyranny with

freedom dieing a little more each year with the passage of
new laws, the handing down of judicial rulings, and the
promulgation of executive orders, it is assumed by increasing
numbers that it is the role of government to provide for all of
our needs and to save us from our own worst tendencies
irrespective of whether or not these are matters we want
massive bureaucracies poking into our private lives about.
As bad as such intrusions are, the fear such a scenario
provokes pales in comparison to the almost messianic mantel
being bestowed upon Barack Obama, qualified (we are told)
to hold the highest elected government office in the land for
no other reason than that he happens to be Barack Obama.
When Americans went into the voting booth, it use to
be expected they would cast their franchise for the individual
most capable of administering the reigns of the executive
branch. Never was the individual to be chosen meant to give
the teeming masses their purpose for existence. However,
with the rise of Barack Obama as he seeks to win the 2008
Democratic nomination for the presidency, his campaign has
taken on increasingly utopian tones.
For example, posted on the April 1, 2008 Guardian is
a column titled “Obama Is The Change That America Has
Tried To Hide”, arguing that only one candidate offers the

radical departure from the normal that the 21st century US
needs for its own sake as well as the rest of the world. In the
piece, the reader finds accolades and platitudes as
revolutionarily disturbing as anything from the time of the
Bolshevik uprising and the Red Menace in terms of the new
order this man’s disciples hope to impose upon society.
For example, the piece speaks of “a new country
existing alongside the old”. Few commentators will possess
the fortitude to translate this phrase honestly, but what that
means is essentially that the holy Barack should have the
presidency bestowed upon him for no other reason than that
he happens to be half Black. The sentiment also implies that
those daring to vote against him had better watch out when
the riots start either after his victory or defeat.
Those thinking I am reading too much into this need
only continue on in the Guardian column as the anti-White
animus becomes even more apparent. This subversive writes,
“I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any the world with no baggage of past servitude or
race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same
scenario with Clinton, who would drag into the 21st century
US leadership the same image of white privilege and
distance from others’ lives that has so marred the country’s
contacts with the rest of the world.”
In other words, “No Whites Need Apply” when it
comes to elected office. Fair enough; maybe we can kick
back now and someone can pay for our Foodstamps and
welfare for a while and get an entire month dedicated to us
where we are applauded for a change for no other reason
than that we happen to be White.

Whites having grown docile in light of pandering to
agitating minorities out of a fear of being classified as
“racist” or whatever other labels are invoked these days to
keep the handouts flowing will no doubt exhibit the
hesitancy to stand up for themselves that has come to
categorize most of this ethnic extraction for the last 25 years
or so. Let’s hope this character flaw corrects itself before the
followers of Obama set out to impose their socialist utopia
where they plan to take what you, ladies and gentlemen,
have worked for and distribute it to deadbeats of all colors
that haven’t lifted a finger.
Think I am overexaggerating? One only need to
continue analyzing this Guardian piece in question to see
just how anti-American the Obamaites really are. Alice
Walker writes, “I want a grown-up attitude towards Cuba,
for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to
the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be
encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves
out of Iraq.”
Edmund Burke is credited with saying that, in order to
love my country, my country must be lovely. One might be
able to love the broad masses of the Cuban people as victims
of Castro’s regime but to say that one loves Cuba as it is
currently constituted means first and foremost that one is a
Communist at heart.
Secondly, it is one thing to believe that prolonged
involvement in Iraq may not be in the best strategic interests
of the United States. However, one is advocating something
far more subversive entirely when one calls for the abolition
of the armed forces all together.

It may not just be the military the devotees of the
sacred Barack might be out to abolish. Walker writes, “Even
if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it
may be beyond his power to lead us into rehabilitation.”
Such a sentiment is basically calling for the abolition of our
constitutional system of government and its replacement with
something more socialistic or Communistic in nature
administered in this case by the Obama.
Pesky things like free speech and the right to worship
as you see fit (especially if you do so in a traditional manner
where you look to God as the source of your rights rather
than the government) causing too much divisiveness? Why
not just abolish them with an executive order? Even
supposedly solid conservative Republicans such as Ronald
Reagan and G.W. Bush showed us there is really no reason
why we should bother with the hassle of the lawmaking
process when implementing measures no American in their
right mind would back.
And you as an American had better not have any
expectations of fighting back. The Second Amendment will
have been done away with long before that with government
stormtroopers sent house to house to confiscate firearms as
transpired in Louisiana following Katrina to citizens that had
committed no crimes.
Walker continues on in an even more frightening tone,
“If he is elected, however, we must as citizens of the planet
insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more,
we must insist that he demand this of us.”
For starters, the phrase “citizens of the planet” should
tip the astute reader off right there that Barack’s followers

are a bunch of borderline Communists. Such a phrase is an
indication that the loyalty the person is invoking is not to the
United States of America or even the God of the Bible but
rather to the enemies of human liberty as those rallying under
the banner of “the Planet” are not going to distinguish
themselves from the Red Chinese, Russian Neo-Soviets, or
radical Islamists.
Secondly, I don’t care who the President is, I don’t
want him making any kinds of “demands” of me. Just how
far will this “compulsory national service” extend? The
Founding Fathers did not set up a system where the national
government was to have extensive interference in the life of
the average citizen.
These kinds of attitudes might be easy to dismiss if
merely the ramblings of some fruitcake author having
stumbled beyond the boundaries of their particular area of
expertise. However, they are increasingly being echoed by
more political insiders and even the candidate himself.
Pundit Chris Matthews has implied that anyone not
voting for Barack Obama is no better than Archie Bunker.
Former governor of Virginia Douglas Wilder has insinuated
that if Obama is not the nominee that there may be riots in
the streets.
In some of his comments, the Obama has attempted to
convince the masses that he has distanced himself from
Jeremiah Wright with whom he has had considerable
admiration for over twenty years. However, other oracles
uttered by the chosen one reveal that his outlook may not
differ all that appreciably from his spiritual mentor.
In comments regarding small town America (meaning

largely rural White people), Obama has said, “You go into
these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small
towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone for 25 years
now and nothing has replaced them... And its not surprising
then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy
to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
For starters, what’s so wrong with clinging to “guns”
or “religion”? By holding onto these metaphysical
foundations, one is of the mindset that one is primarily
responsible for one’s own self and one’s own family (as
symbolized by the protection afforded by the gun) and of
those things one is unable to provide for one’s self one looks
to God for (as symbolized by “religion”).
If anything, Obama’s urban supporters, not those
living in America’s rural and small town heartland, are
frankly the ones that have proven themselves unable of
handling the responsibility of firearms ownership. Thus, it is
reliance on God rather than firearms that the Barack might
have the problem with.
For unlike the pious, self-reliant yeoman of the
American countryside, many urban ghetto dwellers of
otherwise sound body do not want to make a way for their
own families in the world as enabled by God but rather
approach with an outstretched hand in a less than grateful
manner demanding that the taxpayers fill it. Seeking to
bolster his image as some kind of secular messiah with God
as some kind of grandfatherly figure in the background that
simply nods but otherwise keeps His mouth shut for fear of

being sent to a nursing home, this is the kind of dependency
the Obama has a vested interest in fostering.
In Obama’s tirade is a clause that residents of small
town Pennsylvania also cling to “...antipathy to people who
aren’t like them or anti-immigrant a way to
explain their frustrations.” Notice at no time does his
holiness refute whether or not immigrants --- or at least the
waves upon waves being allowed to wash over the fruited
plain --- are changing what it means to be an American.
Many of the new arrivals have no legal grounds to be here in
the first place and they certainly aren’t of America’s
predominant ethnic background (a characteristic somehow
immoral to consider except when advocating why Obama is
the candidate most qualified to be President), and these new
comers are being coddled by those in the egghead
professions in the new refusal to become Americans in their
identity. I suppose it is easier to preach tolerance and
acceptance when, as in the case of Obama’s spiritual mentor
and adviser Jeremiah Wright, you are protected from it by
living behind a gated wall surrounded by upper crust White
Frankly, Obama should be the last to complain about
anyone being bitter as that has pretty much been the fuel
propelling his campaign. His spiritual mentor who drives
around in luxury cars and who is having a mansion built for
himself in a posh White neighborhood talks as is he was the
one dragged here in chains.
Those seeking to defend their lord’s infallibility will
now point out how their master has since distanced himself
from his pastor. That said though, does Barack have the

manhood to put his wife in her place as well? As mouthy as
she is, I somehow doubt that.
Obama’s wife Michelle has remarked along the
campaign trail that this is the first time in her life that she can
remember being proud to be an American. Need I remind
you that this lady is no mere scrubwoman or housemaid and
she has enjoyed the rather comfortable existence of an Ivy
League education?
Granted, things throughout American history were not
perfect, but doesn’t the fact that we Americans complain so
much over the less than perfect serve as testament to just
how good we have it and the freedom to gripe until our
hearts are content show just how proud of things we really
ought to be? Would be interesting to see how Mrs. Obama
would fair with that attitude of hers living under a Third
World regime.
In a prayer poking fun at the hypocritical nature of
many Christians, the following petition is made: “Lord,
protect me from Your followers.” Those who love this
country might utter a similar invocation of “Lord, protect us
from Obama and his followers “ as the movement that has
popped up around this mere mortal seeks to imbue both him
and the office he hopes to acquire with power over our lives
no human institution was meant to hold.

What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Don't

You Understand, Senator?

In her brief time in the national spotlight, Republican

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, if nothing else, has

rejuvenated the debate in this country regarding certain
fundamental values. Interestingly, not all of this stems
directly from the candidate's spoken statements but rather
from a number of comments made about her by her
Democratic counterpart Senator Joseph Biden.
From comments made on Fox and Friends mentioned
in an Associated Press article titled “Biden says Palin family
is off limits to critics”, voters learn that, to the Delaware
Senator, government and politics are the ultimate and
perhaps only source of values, truth, and hope.
In analyzing Palin’s acceptance speech, Biden
remarked, “I didn’t hear the phrase ‘middle class’
mentioned. I didn’t hear a word about healthcare. I didn’t
hear a word about what we’re going to do about the housing
crisis, college education, and all the things that the middle
class is being burdened by now.”
Maybe these things were not mentioned because for
the most part they are not much of the government’s
business. If anything, government involvement for the most
part tends to exacerbate the problems in these perplexing
For example, why is it the government’s responsibility
(and thus ultimately the taxpayer’s) to bail you out of bad
real estate investments? By subsidizing education to such an
extent where it is available to just about everyone whether
they really want it or not, its value has been undermined to
the point where a bachelor’s degree may actually signify less
actual learning than a high school diploma from previous
Traditionally each social sphere oversaw the affairs in

its own domain and exercised caution when venturing into
the waters overseen by the neighboring spheres (especially if
the one doing the intruding was the government). However,
to liberals such as Biden, now as the government reaches
into additional corners of our lives in the name of supposedly
making our lives better, ultimately government and politics
will be the only sphere that remains or be the sphere that
ends up controlling all the others even in terms of the
attitudes that these institutions will be permitted to express.
If the Obama campaign wants to refrain from
commenting on the propriety of the daughter of a Vice
Presidential candidate being expectant with child outside the
bounds of marriage, that is the prerogative of the Obama
campaign. After all, there are platoons of the far more
deviant in the Democratic Party such as Chelsea Clinton
who has been shacked up for years living in what used to be
called “sin”.
However, though Obama might think he hands down
stone tablets from on high with Biden taking them to the
people as some kind of 21st century Moses, to say what the
press and the people can and cannot discuss hints at a
theoretical usurpation of the First Amendment even more
offensive than an out of wedlock pregnancy or a recalcitrant
segment of the public that does not sweep under the rug the
moral values they have been taught simply because they
have become an inconvenience to the elites that have set
themselves up on a level above the rest of us.
The American people, through opinion-forming
institutions such as the media, churches and now the
blogosphere, must be the ones to decide for themselves this

weighty ethical concern. For while the only right decision is
to keep the baby, there are some so progressive in their
outlook that they would ship to a Khmer Rouge-style
reeducation camp anyone that does not reflexively embrace
these new reproductive fads where the baby shower comes
before the bridal shower. To some of us, it takes a while to
debate the consequences for any potential parental
shortcomings when minors become parents before they
properly ought.
There is indeed forgiveness and restoration in Christ.
However, most of the time those stepping into these
challenges are not up for consideration for one of the
nation’s most solemn offices.

Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1

Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's

attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in
which we live. However, despite all the theatrics
surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic
adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few
can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in
"change", which, though sounding like everything you ever
dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.
Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what
was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it
became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual
mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama
had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative
years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond

that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.
David Duke made similar claims during the early to
mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist
thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we
extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a
leopard seldom changes its spots?
Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White
Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue
invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11
o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of
the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of
Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many
Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian
irrespective of ethnic background ought to be cautious about
entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls
such hovels of doctrinal compromise.
By more closely examining what liberation
theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the
broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one
realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and
false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable
historical animosities between the races. And even though
this animosity against what this great country was built upon
goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping
off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being
heralded as an almost messianic figure.
Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah
Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the
American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is
actually more widespread than one might actually think.

To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical
circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah
Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what
was being planned for him among those whose ultimate
loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed
word but instead to race as a manifestation of the
COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in
commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the
things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of
propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is
considerably different.
According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The
Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by
Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God
damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that]
meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns
and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a
collective black racial consciousness can be expressed
uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being
referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as Wright categorizes
them as being part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora
Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white
America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out
Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a
kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that
he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or
look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply
excuse Wright’s preaching, according to an
article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over

Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual
guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in
Old Testament prophets."
The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are
documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black
Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article,
the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but
that the world found out about it before their pony Obama
won the horse race and it would have been too late for
America to do anything about it until the next election.
Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the
Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we
understand it, but his comments have wounded the
opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for
America to embrace his ideals."
Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went
even further in his support for Wright when he told the
Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from
the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a
given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration
of God."
Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as
Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of
Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that
pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a
pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are
we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such
Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely
in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and

that there must be an objective standard that exists above the
mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not
yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However,
leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ, of
which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a
definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of
religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond
and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why
should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just
because they wear a clerical collar?
Such nonsense may be rife within denominations
dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group
largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous
pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against
such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah
Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity
infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of
Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the
heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.
Christianity Today was initially founded as a
conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals
such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the
case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his
Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did
the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from
previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to
latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if
it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all
things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity

Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting
sympathetic viewpoints.
According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright,
Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no
worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of
our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe?
Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him
unreservedly the hand of fellowship?
The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known
as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to
this than Black people wanting to go to church
predominately with other Black people. Even those who
painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making
distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit
there was something profoundly incorrect going on at
Wright’s church.
According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah
Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much
out of theological conviction but rather because she simply
wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the
primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such
significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it
expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.
If a Black person wants to make being around other
Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to
God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a
problem with it. However, White folks are condemned if
White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so
much because of anything against Black people per say but
because what rational White person is going to want to sit

week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the
Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched
White people are. And furthermore quite frankly, in many
Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the
pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the
For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical
confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big
human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy
different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy
going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers
taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that
much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed
Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah
Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle),
Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of
ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if
she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she
There is more to Black liberation theology than
looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact,
a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview
and the individual is valued even less as one is only
important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.
John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that
He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of
Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.

According to a story titled
"Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's
Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not
the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't
really so precious in His site after all. According to
theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as
Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black
Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article,
"The black theologian must reject any conception of God
which stifles black self determination by picturing God as
the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the
oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's
experience, or God is a God of racism."
Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show
preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be
noted that this is not the only kind of double standard
advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.
In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and
ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if
the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than
others, particular standards and expectations can be applied
to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if
one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical
conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-
called "White man's law".
In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary
dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American
children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and
analytical whereas African-American children are "right-

brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface,
such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a
deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific
things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged
bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public
Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they
[public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several
of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why?
Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there
behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."
In other words, since their brains process information
differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide
by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to
adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways
of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if
you expect Black children to sit there and conduct
themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.
Think I am exaggerating? Both the American
Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories
in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist
for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about
minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as
they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.
Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is
discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing
the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that
mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare
checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke
about the moral decay gripping our nation where the

unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage
and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue
having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?
If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater
propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not
condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If
one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion,
even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according
to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a
bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might
even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his
NAACP remarks) “just different”.
In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as
the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical
basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented
these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight
adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes
significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack
Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to
admit to it or not.

Nation Tottering Close To Political Idolatry

It is understandable that most would take an interest in

the peaceful transitions of power that take place in the
United States between one administration to the next as it is
a skill less civilized countries have failed to master.
However, what is taking place right now in relation to
Barack Obama is downright frightening and almost
idolatrous in its implications

About the most disgraceful piece of commemorative
inaugural memorabilia I've seen is a flag with Obama's
visage emblazoned across it.
The flag is a symbol of the United States that ought to
remain above the holders of the highest office sworn to
protect it.
To defile it in this manner is an act as almost
disgusting as burning it.
It has been my contention that if Obama is not the
Anti-Christ, he is certainly a stand in for the dress rehearsal
as Satan works out the kinks.
A plot element central to the narrative of the Book of
Revelation is something known as the "Mark of the Beast"
that all dwelling upon the earth must receive as a sign of
loyalty to this tyrannical regime.
Interestingly, Obama worshipers are not without their
own version. A story on Fox & Friends on 1/18/09
chronicled someone disfiguring their body with an Obama
One might respond that Obama cannot be held
responsible for the devotion of his followers and should not
be perceived as an aspiring dictator because of it.
Frankly though, he has done next to nothing to
discourage it and in fact seems to be encouraging these
ostentatious trappings of power.
For example, if Obama is the epochal figure of
Hegelian proportions he is made out to be, shouldn't he be
putting a stop to all these worshipful inaugural ceremonies,
especially in light of the financial crisis the country faces?
So I guess when he says we will all be called upon to

sacrifice, that does not include the accolades he will have
heaped upon himself.
More concrete proposals being considered just about
come straight from Hitler's playbook.
For starters, there is the Obama tribute film
reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph Of The Will."
Ironically, this cinematic glorification of the Fuehrer is
actually less audacious in its titling than the one about the
new President called "Believe" as if he is somehow
deserving of our prayerful adoration.
Even more frightening are a couple of administrative
initiatives being bandied about by Obama's supporters.
One hopes to turn his vast army of volunteers and
online minions into a "service" organization existing apart
from the government. Can anyone say SA or SS?
Another seeks to establish a position within the White
House that would basically amount to a secretary of art and
culture that would establish an "artists corps" at the beck and
control of the government, no doubt to paint massive
portraits of Obama himself on the sides of public buildings
before it's all over with.
So in these hard economic times where we are told
how it is imperative that we all cut back with Obama at one
time lamenting how Americans should not be able to eat
what we want, drive SUV's, or keep our homes at a constant
70 degrees, we are to be financing new monetary outlays in
support of what amounts to unnecessary aesthetic
Truthful historians of the 80's and 90's will recall that
government funded art was usually a euphemism for crosses

submerged in urine, dung smeared portraits of the Virgin
Mary, and floors painted to look like the American flag so
you could not get through a room without having to trample
asunder Old Glory.
With all the fanatical behavior being exhibited, one
must stop to ask would this devotion reach such a fever pitch
if Obama was White or, even more importantly,
Makes you wonder if they are wrapped up in the man
or the undeserved handouts he plans to give them.

Microdictatorships Line The Road To The Future

In my column "Capital Implements Measures

Violating Rights & Property", I warned that a number of
steps taken in the name of curtailing crime in a particular
Washington, DC neighborhood forbidding entrance to
anyone but those whose business and reasons for being there
were deemed legitimate by law enforcement were to be baby
steps in laying the foundation of a plan that would ultimately
turn many of America's cities into micropolice states by
cordoning off selected segments of concentrated areas of
population. Some snickered at my idea as I in part drew
inspiration for my projections from an episode of "Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine" where the downtrodden were corralled
into sanctuary districts, and they also chided me for failing to
comprehend the complexities of the lawless situation
supposedly requiring a response characterized by
considerable sternness.
In all honesty, as an analyst basing many of my

conjectures upon extrapolations where I see various trends
headed, there are times when I wonder if perhaps I have
overreacted to certain things I have stumbled across in the
news. However, in light of a number of additional press
accounts, any doubts I may have had about America’s
municipalities eventually going into a state of lockdown with
few chances of them reopening have been laid to rest as
things continue along to such a lamentable destination
According to an Associated Press story posted 1/8/09
at titled “Bridges, streets being close for
inauguration”, all bridges crossing the Potomac River and a
“huge chunk of downtown” will be closed a goodly portion
of the week Barack Obama is scheduled to assume control
of the federal government. Only official and authorized
vehicles will be granted access over these routes headed into
the nation’s capital.
Those accustomed to doing as they are told might
respond, “What’s the big deal? This is only for an historic
one time event that will be over with in a few days?”
Maybe so. But chain smokers and chronic boozers
weren’t born into the addictions that plague them daily
Since that is the case, once both authorities and
commuters have acclimated to the first time something like
this is done in the nation’s capital to this extent, it will be all
the easier the next time and then it will be done so frequently
that it will no longer make headlines. Eventually, very few
will give a second thought to the death of yet another liberty
whose surrender has very little to do about saving actual
American lives but rather about unduly controlling them.

One can make a case about shutting down access to
much of Washington, DC for the protection of the President
during the inauguration and the hundreds of thousands of
duped brainwashed sheeple coming to gawk worshipfully
upon their psuedomessiah. However, what is to prevent the
city from being closed for less auspicious purposes?
For example, few will dispute that traffic throughout
the Washington Metropolitan Area can be a nightmare.
Where you will find differences of opinion is in what to do
about it.
It does not take a creative genius on the level of Tom
Clancy to speculate that one day progressivist social
planners running everything could decree that, in the name of
aestheticism, urban planning, sustainable development or
whatever other rhetorical garbage they might be spewing at
some future date, only a certain number of cars will be
granted entry permits to come into the city (most of them
going of course to these elites who always insist upon the
need for sacrifice but always on your part and never of
Workers and others lower down the occupational
ladder would either have to congregate at pickup points
outside the city where they would be duly scrutinized to
determine whether or not their reason is meritoriously
sufficient to be granted entrance to the city or --- as in the
case of some in the lower class needed to serve their betters
during inaugural festivities --- workers could be warehoused
in barracks at their respective jobsites.
This idea of shutting down U.S. municipalities
wholesale is so anathema to the American way of life that

very few have intellect expansive enough to wrap their
minds around it at this time and dismiss this conjecture as
alarmism. Perhaps if they stop and consider what went on in
the summer of 2008 in the Arkansas town of Helena-West
Helena, they will see that this warning is not one of hysteria
but rather a probable future for this once free land if the
American people continue to uncritically swallow everything
they are told about the steps supposedly necessary to curb
violence, crime, and terrorism.
In August 2008 in that town in response to a crime
wave, police were not directed to go after those known to be
breaking any laws but rather to enforce an around the clock
curfew where residents were forbidden to be outside of their
homes. Violators were subject to further scrutiny by law
enforcement and forced back into their domiciles if the
reason coerced from them did not pass the rigors of further
Docile minions of the New World Order claim that it
will only be those acting nervously or suspiciously that will
be accosted. But frankly, who wouldn't act nervously or
suspiciously under the constant threat of at any second of
police cursing at you at the top of their lungs, getting a shot
of mace in the face, or getting a gun pointed at your head
with you the one having to justify why you have wandered
out of the house and not the police for beating you like a
rented mule.
In a story titled "Go Home Or Go To Jail!: Helena-
West Helena Implements Curfew For All Ages," a resident
told a reporter with, " can't
go to the store without being harassed by police."

That scenario brings us to yet another conjecture as to
where these policies might be headed in the future if
Americans refuse to wake up. What is to prevent the police
from determining whether or not your trip to the store and
what you plan to purchase there is or is not legitimate? After
all, the all-wise Obama prophesied that there is coming a
time when Americans will no longer be able to eat what they
Since America is edging ever-closer to the point
where, in the name of public health and national security, the
state must make for the individual the most detailed of
personal decisions, why not kill two birds with one stone?
One could easily combat both the crime spree and obesity
epidemic by not only putting the innocent under house arrest
but by also only allowing them to eat the provisions brought
to their doors during the periods of protracted curfew and
Preposterous, you say. Americans will never put up
with living in such a manner. Well, up until recently, would
they have put up with a 24 hour curfew?
Throughout the Western world, freedom as we once
knew it is pretty much on its last leg. Things we once took
for granted such as driving over a public bridge or even
enjoying our own yards will become a thing of the past
unless we vocalize our dissent. And with the attitude Obama
has exhibited towards the press here in the opening days of
his presidency, even the ability to do that may be endangered
if the American people fail to exercise eternal vigilance.

Obama Is Not America's Hope

During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw

something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In
the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some
publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.
That was not the disturbing part even to someone that
did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow
making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance.
Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope
Of America".
As the new President, even Americans that did not
vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified
context in regards to those duties delineated within the
confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that
he is the head of state of the country in which we live.
However, he is not America's hope.
Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the
person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It
says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all
things consist.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive
you of your sins.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the
whole world in His hands.
Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and
security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the
entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama,
that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your
world has been shattered and you don't know what can be

done to make things right.
Even for those uncomfortable about making public
acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon
deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American
people ought to look to before Barack Obama.
For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S.
Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to
Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is
taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in
government all the way from the President down to the
youngest private in the U.S. army.
It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that
keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of
a few through a system of checks and balances and
separation of powers.
It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law
(note does not grant) a number of rights the individual
possesses as an individual created in the image of God.
Barack Obama cannot do this.
Secondly, the American should look to himself for
hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen,
you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and
goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to
provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's
beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.
Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and
earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the
jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority.
Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene
in those areas of life where the physically able ought to

provide for themselves.

Obama Nothing But A Poseur

According to a Washington Times story titled "Obama

Now In Combat Mode", the President is headed to a posh
Williamsburg resort where he and the politburo will wallow
in luxury ringing their hands about the deteriorating
It is estimated that the trip will cost at least $80,000.
This tabulation was arrived at by factoring in the $70,000 it
will cost Democratic leaders to charter an Amtrak train to
the event and the $11,000 for food and the $7,000 spent on
entertainment at this leftist orgy back in 2003.
If these frauds were really interested in addressing the
nation's problems, they'd drive there themselves, pack their
own snacks, and go outlet shopping on their own dime like
the rest of us when on break.
Better yet, they don't need to go there at all because
what are they going to do over the course of a single
weekend there that they don't get done the rest of the week
while they are in Washington?
Readers need to be reminded that the President going
to this event was the candidate who at one time lamented
about the American people eating what we wanted, driving
SUV's, and keeping our homes at 72 degrees.
Real leadership consists of not placing a set of
expectations upon those following you that you yourself are
not willing to abide by.
If President Obama was anything more than a poseur,

he would refuse to participate in this ostentatious
consumption at taxpayer expense.

Obamaphiles Enjoy That Which They Would

Deny You

The Obama progeny are well into their studies at

Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and
Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the
school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is
one of the many prerogatives the President’s most
enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the
average American, decide to exercise them.
For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued
that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children
ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient
devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to
obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose
private education as much as they support the public
This might be the line propagated for mass
consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education
(at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper.
For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what
those below them believe and even how we live our lives,
education is not so much about the accumulation of a
particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the
individual to make a way for themselves and their families in
the world.
Rather, among this class education is seen about

conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place
predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not
be able to advance beyond that. That is, of course, if human
ambition is not engineered out of the individual human
psyche all together through a combination of compulsory
pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement
popularly referred to as brainwashing.
Others will respond that, as the children of the
President, these youngsters need to be protected from the
assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school
where access is gained more quickly than in a more
disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely
However, the question to ask here happens to be are
not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to
him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of
protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet
many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’
decision to educate their children in a private school are
among the very same voices insisting you are under some
kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your
offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright
As central as the issue of education is, as the
philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the
philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only
matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the
dawning "progressivist" era. These social engineers hope to
impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown
accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for

yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing
what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done.
In a statement lamenting the environmental attitudes
of the average American, Barack Obama has decreed that
the world is nearing a time when we can no longer eat what
we want, drive around in our SUV's, and keep our homes at
70 degrees. Of course, such hand-wringing and soul-
searching agony is exhibited over how you, the average
American, live your life and has nothing whatsoever to do
with this figure heralded as transformational lives his life.
After all, as Hegel hypothesized, such figures are beyond the
rules imposed upon the rest of us.
In the eyes of his Barackness, you probably eat too
much and at a level higher than your social class ought to be
permitted. However, our liege should be permitted to stuff
his face as he sees fit.
For while you are to subsist on berries and twigs not
much more advanced than our gatherer ancestors of pre-
agricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted
upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasses-
whipped sweet potatoes, and apple sponge cake. There
were also three wines to choose from (no wonder an old
drunk like Ted Kennedy went into convulsions and had to be
carted out in an ambulance).
Those inclined to give their new lord the benefit of the
doubt will reply, “Well, why shouldn’t he have a special treat
on his special day?” And who can argue with that as most
(at least until Mayor Bloomberg has his way) get graduation
and wedding cakes. However, does someone that complains
you are eating something other than sawdust and dirt have

the right to turn around and eat like a king day in and day
Most Americans either prepare their own sustenance
or are blessed to have someone in their family do this for
them. Yet despite admonishing the rest of us repeatedly on
the need for sacrifice, Barack is not going to settle for having
someone in his family prepare his meals for him even though
neither Michelle nor his mother-in-law living with the family
at the White House have any other obligations to fulfill other
than those of wife and grandmother.
Instead, the White House has at its disposal a first rate
kitchen. Some may argue that such is necessary for assorted
state dinners and diplomatic receptions as the facility can
serve 140 guests.
However, according to a 1/28/09 Yahoo News story
titled “Hail To The Chefs”, the one chef already employed
by the White House is not enough. The Obamas are bringing
from Chicago their private chef (in other words, they have
been of the mind for quite awhile now that they are too good
to cook for themselves). And like his massa, the Obama
chef thinks the average American suffers from
“overabundance” and that those in the culinary professions
“should take leadership in tackling public health issues”. As
what, the beat cops of the food police?
Obama’s detached elitism goes beyond enjoying a
level of snobbish luxury he would wish to keep from you to
that of actually endangering lives and public safety. This
was especially evident during the winter months when
citizens could see first hand the implications of his flippant
policy announcements. It is in this analysis that we see first

hand that Obama does not really think or care all that much
about regular Americans.
In his campaign oration, Obama lamented about
Americans keeping their homes heated at around 70 degrees.
The President is as much a hypocrite on this point as he is
about shaming you on the matter of food while he stuffs his
face with delicacies the rest of us can barely pronounce and
even less likely ever taste.
For while you are suppose to sit around your home
shivering all in the name of the environment and over what
the ghetto nations of the earth think of the United States of
America, Obama might be sweating, but its not over what he
thinks the thermostat should be set to but because of what he
has set the thermostat to. From photographs taken during
Obama’s first full day in office, some where shocked when
the President was caught without a suit coat on in the Oval
Though this fell far short of the shock value of what
Bill Clinton removed while within the confines of these
particular walls, once again as a historical figure of Hegelian
proportions, Obama is not bound by the strictures of the
epoch he is leading us out of. According to his staff, Obama
likes the thermostat set at 80 degrees since he is use to the
warm weather of his native Hawaii.
Well whoopteedoo!!! If his majesty likes Hawaii so
much, perhaps he should have run for governor of that state
in order to run it into the ground rather than for the
presidency of the United States.
However, while Obama basks in the sauna, you are
suppose to suck it up and head out into the freezing cold.

His highness insinuated as such when he enunciated his
displeasure that his daughters’ school had cancelled classes
after a spate of wintery precipitation.
Of this disruption to the scholastic calendar Obama
ruminated, “My children’s school was cancelled today.
Because of what? Some ice?...As my children pointed out,
in Chicago, school is never cancelled...I’m saying, when it
comes to weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able
to handle things.”
Well, hurray for Chicago. If he likes the way things
are done there, perhaps he should have stayed there with his
crooked gangland associates.
Though the Obamas’ reputations as parents seem to be
impeccable and loving, one must seriously question how
often Barack has actually personally himself driven his
daughters to school these past few years. After all, from the
looks of it, daddy was either on the road campaigning or in
Washington (at least that is where he should have been
instead of out campaigning) as a member of the Senate.
And now with their father as President, it is doubtful
that the Obama daughters will be subjected to the dangers of
Washington area traffic. In all likelihood, each school day
the New Lord's progeny will be motorcaded to their
destination with all other vehicles required to get out of the
way as they pass by.
Your children, one can conclude from the President's
own words, aren't worthy of being escorted to school in a
similar degree of safety. For if Americans are to give up
their SUV's as admonished by the President, how are they
suppose to get to school in one of those effeminate, limp-

wristed hybrids?
No wonder the Obama whelps want to go to school in
the slop. They don't have to worry about slipping on the ice.
One of the marks of a great leader is the willingness to
abide by the same expectations they extol upon others.
Despite all the hype about Obama being such a great leader
that will turn back the rising seas and all that malarkey, it
seems he can’t even rise to the level of the simplest

Kooks Now Run The Asylum

Every four years, the inauguration of the President

sets the tone for the direction in which those in the highest
executive office hope to steer the nation. Since that is the
case, the American people should be very concerned about
the lunacy put on display at the swearing in of Barack
Obama from beginning to end.
With the gays going into the theatrical hysterics those
of that proclivity are renowned for over the invocation
delivered by Rick Warren, one would have hoped for
something more theologically profound. However, many
have no doubt heard sounder sentiments emanating from four
year olds saying grace over crackers and juice.
Billy Graham in his heyday Warren is not. From
Warren’s words, one could have easily come away assuming
God did not know Obama was Black. Warren said, “...we
celebrate a hinge point of history with the inauguration of the
first African American president of the United States...We
know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are

shouting in heaven.”
These things didn’t even need to be mentioned. For
decades now, we have been repeatedly told that it is not the
color of skin but rather the content of character that counts.
So then why should we be grateful to have a president
whose only characteristic that set him above his peers was
his mulatoo pigmentation? Would Warren and the other
adherents of the outstretched hand of the Social Gospel been
as fawning if the likes of Allan Keyes, Walter Williams, or
Thomas Sowell had been elected to high office?
Furthermore, one might in the course of a speech
rhetorically intonate that “Dr. King and a great cloud of
witnesses are shouting in heaven” and not be too far out of
line. However, doesn’t it smack of the utmost hubris to tell
the Lord in a prayer what we know the inhabitants of
Heaven are doing? As mortals not having crossed over yet
to the other side, how in the world (since those mentioned
are no longer in it), can we have any certain idea about what
those on the other side think of a development here we are
all a flutter over?
Dr. King, if even there since as a Modernist he
disbelieved a number of fundamental Christian doctrines,
might have no idea whatsoever what is going on back here.
Or if he does, perhaps in that ethereal realm human
perception would be so unencumbered by the concept of
phenotype variation that they would not even notice what
color Barack Obama might happen to be (something his
temporal supporters can’t seem to get beyond).
Another irritant regarding Warren's prayer was it's
bow to political correctness. While one might make a case

for pronouncing the name of Jesus in Hebrew as that was
likely what He went by while walking this earth, since this is
an English speaking nation, there is no reason whatsoever to
pronounce the name of the Lord in Spanish during a
government-sanctioned prayer unless Warren wants to
translate the remainder of his petition as well. Since God
speaks all languages, the English pronunciation would have
proven sufficient if his intentions were to speak into the ear
of God.
In his closing line, Warren petitioned "Help us to
remember that we are united not by race or religion or blood,
but over our commitment to freedom and justice for all."
And though there can be a unity among and between human
beings that transcend the genetic categories of race or
ethnicity, that is only possible on the basis of some shared
religious commonality that Warren thumbed his nose at the
Almighty about that our unity is not based upon.
Some will claim but what about our commitment to
freedom and justice as Warren mentions. Those would be
good foundations to build upon, but in this day where the
nation's leaders stand upon the steps of the nation's Capitol
and lecture us as to how no set of ideas or beliefs are better
than any other, just whose version of freedom and justice
then are we going to live by?
One would think Warren would be more aware of
these implications, technical sounding as they might be.
After all, it was in the name of freedom, not so much in the
sense of doing what they want to to each other but rather
from the standpoint of you having to stand around and
applaud them as good people for doing it, that the sissies

flew into conniptions saying that Warren was unacceptable
to play a part in the inauguration because of his refusal to
embrace sodomite nuptials.
Even some of the parts of Warren’s prayer innocuous
upon initially hearing them needed to be examined further in
light of the nature and character of the President for whom
such petitions were being invoked. For example, for the
most part, there is nothing wrong in calling for “civilizing
our attitudes, even when we differ” as Warren invoked.
However, when this is invoked by liberals it is usually a
warning that conservatives will not be permitted to speak out
in opposition to their ideological opponents without being
battered by the usual refrain of “bigot, sexist, homophobe”
and that protestor types will be pretty much permitted to
smash property and loot as they see fit with those in
authority applauding such rabble rousers for raising
awareness and such.
From the highpoint of Warren’s prayer, the Inaugural
ceremonies pretty much went down hill from there.
One might be able to shield Obama from the criticism
of the bit players brought onto the stage by claiming that
these individuals represent their own voices and were not
necessarily endorsed by the President in their entirety.
However, one cannot explain away the words and tone
spewed fourth from his own lips during what should have
been the most deliberate enunciation of his worldview and
beliefs he is likely ever to make before the American people.
As with most politicians, Obama has tried to be all
things to all men so that he might hoodwink the greatest
number. Peppered throughout the address were a number of

rhetorical concessions designed to lull the critical thinking of
those living by conservative principles but who have not
really given them considerable reflection.
For example, President Obama said, “For as much as
government...must do, it is ultimately the faith and
determination of the American people upon which this nation
relies.” And towards the end of this portion of his address,
the President said, “But these values upon which our success
depends...These things are true...What is demanded then is a
return to these truths.”
More conservative and Christian words could not be
spoken. However, much of the address undermined these
very words and the venerable aforementioned philosophies
indispensable to a strong nation.
Obama said, “Our economy is badly weakened, and
consequences of greed and irresponsibility on the part of
some but also out of our collective failure to make hard
choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” In other
words, the ruined economy is not the fault of crooked
financiers and welfare leeches thinking they are entitled to
own a house whether they can afford one or not, but also the
fault of those that go to work and mind their own business.
For you see, in the dawning era, you are at fault ---
especially if you work your own way through life and mind
your own business. This is evidenced in the rhetoric
sprinkled throughout Obama's address.
The first phrase already noted is "our collective
failure". For in the "new age" Obama repeatedly mentions,
one is not judged or held accountable primarily as an
individual but rather as a component of a particular group or

The traditional rights and protections Americans have
called upon in the past to defend against encroachments by
government or to correct injustices will no longer necessarily
apply. Our new lord has said as such himself when he
intoned, "...the stale political arguments that have consumed
us for so long no longer apply". Elsewhere in the same
address Obama declared, "On this day, we proclaim an end
to the...worn out dogmas that for too long strangled our
And what might these worn out "dogmas" and
"political arguments" be, ladies and gentleman? That all men
are created equal? That Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?
That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That the
government big enough to give you everything is big enough
to take it all away?
Millions around the world have died for these
principles over the course of the 20th and now into the 21st
centuries. But to Barack Obama, they are inconveniences to
be set aside by the wave of his mighty hand if they get in the
way of his interpretation of bipartisanship, which means a
uniformity of opinion.
The Protobeast intoned, “The question we ask today
is not whether our government is too big or too small, but
whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care
they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." So in other
words, so long as Mussolini keeps the trains running on
time, we have no right to voice our concerns as to how much

the government might be prying into our lives and into areas
over which no healthy state is capable of exerting a balanced
Those that have coasted by not paying much attention
to the extent to which conditions have deteriorated will
respond that truth, justice, and the American way will
prevent Obama from doing too much damage. However, as
a master deceiver having dutifully learned at the feet of his
socialist handlers who have groomed him for the role he now
holds, Obama will not blatantly set aside these cherished
notions but instead recast them in an image useful for
achieving his own ends.
Obama admonished, "Starting today, we must pick
ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of
remaking America." While the country may have a few
issues and problems that need to be addressed, are things
really so bad that we need to "remake America"?
For does not that invocation imply that everything this
nation was built upon and made it great has to be scrapped in
its entirety? And that is exactly what Obama intends to do.
For example, in the inaugural address, Obama
promised, “We will restore science to its rightful place.”
From this, one would assume that doctors were still using
leeches to bleed patients. However, what Obama is calling
for here is a fanatic round of baby harvesting in pursuit of
stem cells and having evolution crammed down the throats
of American school children as the sole explanation as to the
origins of life on earth.
Parents thinking otherwise might not have any say in
the matter unless they are willing to pay the price as

homeschool fugitives if Obama continues his pattern of
modeling the U.S. along the lines of the European Union.
Obama promised, “And we will transform our schools and
colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”
Did you just notice that, dear reader: “the demands of
a NEW AGE.” Having heard it now for nearly 40 years
along with related variants such as the Age of Aquarius, the
term has come to jokingly characterize long-haired beatniks
that might have taken one too many hits on the bong but who
are otherwise mellow and good-natured. However, the
concept of the New Age is to the realms of spirituality,
philosophy, and religion what the term New World Order is
to politics and essentially serves as the foundational
worldview of this proposed geo-political social system.
With the Obama agenda, the New Age mindset shares
the perspective that you are not so much a distinct individual
worthy as such but rather a mere component emanating
outward into larger and larger groups. For example, at the
lowest level you are part of the COMMUNITY.
Note that the family has been skipped over entirely as
the prerogatives of the reactionary fecund union between a
monogamous man and woman must be overridden by the
preferences of the bureaucracy administering the larger
group. At the highest level, all identity is subsumed into an
absolutist holism. Obama prophesizes, “...the lines of tribe
shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our
common humanity shall reveal itself.”
Chesterton, or someone nearly as wise, once remarked
that one shouldn’t take down a fence unless you know why it
was put up. Ladies and gentlemen (especially ladies), if we

are to live as one common humanity, do you really want a
Pakistani tribesman with Taliban sympathies to have a say
over how you live your life in terms of whether or not you
can go outside without a bag over you head, be permitted to
drive a car, or even have windows in your home not painted
over so that you can look outside?
A world without distinctions was also a dream shared
by Communists. And as has happened in all regimes that
sought to obliterate all distinctions save those imposed by
the all powerful state such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet
Union or Red China, the attempt here will result in a wide-
scale abridgement of basic human rights.
For example, throughout his inaugural address,
Obama made the attempt to depict himself as no respecter of
persons on the basis of race or ethnicity by denouncing
segregation and the like as a “dark chapter” of our nation’s
history. However, from an examination of the other rhetoric
employed by the new President, like the pigs in Orwell’s
Animal Farm, it is quite evident that Obama views some
racial groups as being more equal than others.
For example, in his inaugural address, Obama dropped
lines such as “from the grandest capitals to the small village
where my father was born” and “why a man whose father
less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local
restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred
oath.” From the sound of it, you’d come away from
Obama’s speech thinking the President’s father was a very
honorable man.
Obama’s father was anything but as he was little more
than a drunken bigamist scoundrel hardly worthy of being

immortalized as part of the annals of Inauguration rhetoric.
Obama’s grandparents, who actually raised and provided for
Barack even when his own mother abandoned him in favor
of the wonders of Indonesian blacksmithing, were not even
worthy of a single mention.
After carefully cogitating over the differences that
might make an alcoholic bigamist morally superior to an
elderly couple that would take in their grandson and raise
him as their own, in the eyes of Obama it must be that his
father happens to be a Black African whereas Obama’s
maternal grandparents were just in their grandson’s own
words “typical White people”. And just as Communists in
the past set up a more stringent class system in their alleged
attempt to eliminate this particular social distinction, in the
name of racial equality Barack Obama will likely do
everything in his power to expand minority set asides and
This underlying contempt for White people was
evident throughout the remainder of the inaugural oration.
For example, following in the grand tradition of Democrats
picking poets that barely make sense such as Maya Angelou
at Bill Clinton’s, not to be outdone Obama also felt
compelled to feature a poetess few had the bravery to admit
publicly just how lousy she was. And in keeping with the
theme of these shenanigans, Obama commissioned an ode in
the spirit of his own brand of inanity.
Mixed between banalities such as “patching a tire”
and a few worthy insights such as the centrality of words in
the human processing of sensory experience, “Praise Song
For The Day” was lit with a number of code words one can

find without too much trouble if schooled in the kinds of
imagery leftists peddle in as they foment revolution. For
example, the poem reads “Sing the names of the dead who
brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,
picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the
glittering edifices they would keep clean and work inside
Ladies and gentleman, those names of the dead to be
sung are not those of the servicemen who died on behalf of
the United States as it is not the nature of Obama’s
malcontent colleagues to enunciate respectfully about our
armed forces. The only uniforms they will speak favorably
of are those of the civilian security forces that will no doubt
over the course of the next few years be authorized to break
into our homes to see if we are eating government proscribed
meals, what our thermostats are set to, and what kinds of
light bulbs we have screwed in. Rather, even though most
Americans are publicly willing to treat those of other races
cordially, such lines are designed to yet one more time rub
America’s nose in the issue of slavery.
Some will claim that only the mentally and socially
unstable would dare read between the lines and point
something out like that. However, research points out that
the woman that presented the poem is the one subverting
American institutions and Obama should be embarrassed for
having made her part of the inaugural festivities.
Frankly, Obama’s inaugural poet is such a literary
pervert that, in comparison, Bill Clinton’s Oval Office trysts
could be included as an addendum to the next edition of Bill
Bennett’s Book Of Virtues. According to a Brent Bozell

piece titled “No Poetry Controversy?”, Elizabeth Alexander
has exhibited a disturbing interest in mutilated geneatalia
throughout her published work and postulates that Black
athletes being paid millions of dollars per year are as
mistreated as Rodney King (who probably wasn’t as
mistreated by police as media would always have us believe)
and even the innocent tragically lynched in decades past.
Those endorsing her lyrical undertakings will snap,
“Dr. Alexander is a respected Yale professor.” If that is the
case, this nation is even worse off if such mental swill is
what parents are paying an arm and a leg for for their
children to be intellectually poisoned in the name of
education. I’ve known smarter and wiser high school
dropouts than this.
Up until that point, most of the anti-American and
anti-Anglo sentiment had been hidden in euphemism that the
unsuspecting could not openly identify, though manipulated
by in terms of their perceptions nonetheless. By the end of
this national folly, it was pretty clear the direction in which
Obama hopes to take the country over the course of his
To close the ceremony, Rev. Joseph Lowery offered
the following benediction: “Lord, in the memory of all the
saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new
beginning, we ask that you help us work for that day when
blacks will not be asked to get in the back, when brown can
stick around...when the red man can get ahead, man; and
when white will embrace what is right. That all those who
do justice and love mercy say Amen.”
Some might chuckle at this, as Obama no doubt did.

On a number of occasions such as his “60 Minutes”
interview and when Wanda Sykes longed for the death of
Rush Limbaugh, Obama displayed his inability to stifle
jocularity when propriety would require him do so.
However, there are dangerous misconceptions in that prayer
if these sentiments uplifted to the Almighty are permitted to
become the foundation of policy.
For starters, Blacks are no longer required to get in
the back, and neither should they. Since these radicals have
opened the door for the slingers of racial slights, if anything,
Whites these days are the ones metaphorically being asked
to get in the back of the bus in terms of Affirmative Action
and related ethnic set asides.
For there is still no White History Month. From what
I am able to gather, Whites are about the only ethnic group
that do not have their own museum explicitly named after
them on the Mall in Washington (and the Museum of
American History does not count, as the last time I was there
about a decade ago, displays depicting Hispanic culture
enjoyed top billing with an exhibit of a sombrero-wearing,
trumpet-blowing skeleton being prominent in my memory).
Furthermore, an associate of mine who has a college degree
and a considerable amount of work experience is unable to
advance beyond an entry level position whereas blatantly
incompetent Blacks are moved into higher levels of
management whose only qualification happens to be that
they are Black.
In the comment, “when brown can stick around”,
what this apostate either playing at being a minister of God
or one so mentally deficient as to have bought into the

revolutionary swill eroding America’s foundations is calling
for is blanket amnesty to all illegals. Maybe this preacher
should have added a witty line about “the browns” obeying
the law and coming here in compliance with duly constituted
procedures and then only if they want their first earthly
political loyalty to be the United States of America.
In another offensive line of the poem, Lowery
expressed a longing for the day "when White will embrace
what is right." Utilizing his previous lines as a guide as to
how to interpret this one, one could conclude that he does
not believe Whites have overall embraced what is right.
Oh really? Is he not allowed to stand before the
country and be as much of a national embarrassment as he
wants to be? How about a line how these groups should
stop blaming Whitey when most of their problems these days
stem from their own refusal to behave themselves?
But in perhaps the most disturbing line of the
benediction, Lowery intoned, “That all those who do justice
and love mercy say ‘amen’.” Such an imperative implied
that, if one does justice and loves mercy, one must add one’s
spiritual ascent to this inane babbling and, that if one does
not, one approves of injustice and oppression.
Yet did not Obama in the very same address drone on
with platitudes about tolerating other viewpoints? Obama
said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and
Hindus and non-believers.”
Not a single Muslim or Hindu had anything to do with
the founding of this nation and George Washington remarked
it was impossible to be a good American and not believe in
God. One should not have to grant verbal consent to the

warped multiculturalist conceptions of justice and mercy if
one professes to cherish what these values originally meant.
In his few short months in office, Barack Obama has
set more ruination of this country into motion than most
presidents do over the course of their entire administrations.
And unless Americans come to understand the kind of
worldview enunciated by the President and his allies at the
Inauguration, this nation stands little chance of remaining
that shining city on a hill that at one time gave hope to
oppressed people around the world.

Book On Hitler Youth Warns Of Communitarian


When pondering the evils of Nazism and Adolf Hitler,

one's mind reflexively turns to the horrors of the Second
World War and the Holocaust because of the overwhelming
loss of life surrounding these historical events. However,
coming in high on the list of the Third Reich's atrocities was
its use of state power to undermine the most basic of human
rights and the subordination of all other social institutions to
the prerogatives of the Party. In Life In The Hitler Youth by
Jennifer Keeley, the reader learns of the Nazi subversion of
the family and realizes the disturbing parallels that can be
drawn with developments unfolding in our own nation.
According to Keeley, all of German life (including the
minutest details of one's personal life) was brought under
Nazi control through the policy of Gleichschaltung (or
coordination) so that all of society and culture would reflect
National Socialism (9). As such, the 1936 Law Concerning

The Hitler Youth decreed that all of German youth were to
be incorporated under the banner of this organization.
Most Americans would probably marvel how all these
things unfolded in Germany and take comfort thinking the
same sort of thing could not happen in the United States.
However, when reading Life In The Hitler Youth, one comes
away with an uneasiness in the pit of the stomach when one
realizes the similarities of the philosophies justifying a
number of the programs in Nazi Germany and the United
States of America.
Many will be outraged by such a statement. And
though the United States is nothing like Nazi Germany in
terms of destroying innocent human lives (at least in regards
to those making it out of the womb without being hacked to
pieces), if Americans do not now get a hold of certain
ideological trends festering below the surface of public
policy, the nation could very easily find it self sliding in this
kind of downward direction.
In both the Nazi and secular progressiveist systems, it
is not so much the individual created in the image of God
protected by a set of unchanging eternal laws that matters
but rather the larger group that counts. For as much as the
word “community” is used in Life In The Hitler Youth, one
could end up thinking one was reading the press releases of
the national service proposals of either the Democratic or
Republican parties. For example, the 1936 Law Concerning
The Hitler Youth read in part, "The whole of German youth
is to be educated, outside the parental home and school, in
the Hitler Youth physically, intellectually, and morally in the
spirit of National Socialism for service to the nation and

community (16).”
Often, justification for the Hitler Youth was couched
in language that would not be all that foreign to our own
ears. As evidenced in one of Hitler’s speeches: “learn...that
life for you must mean sacrifice, sacrifice of your personal
freedom, sacrifice of your free time, sacrifice of many of the
small pleasures of life; sacrifices when you take on yourself
charges, not for the individual, not for yourself alone...but for
your small, and yet so great community (39).” Ladies and
gentleman, have we not heard as of late the word “sacrifice”
on the lips of another aspiring demagogue that has
irrationally mesmerized the dupable masses?
Sophisticates will groan that Hitler Youth programs
were compulsory while Obama’s are voluntary (at least for
now anyway). Eventually, it was indeed compulsory to join
the Hitler Youth; however, the communalist rhetoric
justifying such is worthy of Amitai Etzioni.
In much the same way the national service proposals
brought before Congress and the American people claim to
be voluntary, some of the service required of German youth
was not explicitly obligatory but mandated anyway. Keeley
writes, “To teach Hitler Youth the importance of their Volk
community, the National Socialists suggested members
participate in a form of land service. Although not obligated
to do so by any mandate or decree, every year young people
... were expected to help the Volk community...This was
designed to teach young people about putting the needs of
the community before their own (40).”
The objective of such programs --- be they either in a
dictatorship or even in a representative democracy --- is

ultimately to undermine the loyalty of its participants in
regards to other authorities such as family or religion and to
replace it with an absolute fealty to the organs of the state.
In pursuit of this goal, a number of policies were
implemented to get the young away from what would likely
have been moderating and counterbalancing influences.
Though always of maniacal intentions, the first phase
of this program was seemingly innocuous enough as it
consisted of scheduling so many activities and meetings that
the good Nazi family had to take part in that they were
basically kept running around, away from one another, and
unable to reflect more critically about what they were being
lured into. This wasn't really all that much different than
what is going on in many of these Emergent and Purpose
Driven megachurches these days where activities and
meetings are scheduled multiple nights per week and it is
insinuated you are less than an ideal Christian if you only
show up for the traditional scheduled Sunday and perhaps
Wednesday services.
Those running afoul of National Socialist authorities
underwent a process of scrutiny by the social service
agencies of that day in a manner those under suspicion for
other than quantifiable physical abuse in our own time could
relate to. Parents refusing to go along with the Hitler Youth
agenda could have their children taken away on the grounds
of being “politically unreliable” (the old term for politically
incorrect). One might say such parents failed to have their
children “properly socialized”, a term often invoked by those
opposing home and private forms of education.
Common to all forms of socialism --- be they the

Communist, Fascistic, or even more democratic and less
blatantly homicidal varieties --- is the aspiration to so totally
order the existences of those living under these systems that
the state comes to take the place once reserved for God in
the hearts of the people. Unlike Communism that was
blatantly atheistic early on, the Nazis were a bit more sly in
their manipulations to get Germans to unseat the Lord as the
supreme authority in their hearts.
Keeley writes, “Finally, the Nazis attempted to replace
Christianity with National Socialist ideology in the lives of
youth. Some National Socialists expressed discontent with
the so-called Jewish roots of Christianity...The Nazis began
to remove symbols, such as the cross, from schools (57).”
Sounds like a move straight out of the ACLU playbook.
An example of the extent to which the Nazis would go
to accomplish this objective was epitomized by a prayer
children were required to recite in order to receive a free
school lunch (a form of welfare also prominent in our public
schools today): “Fuehrer, my Fuehrer, bequeathed to me by
the Lord, protect and preserve me as long as I live. Thou
hast rescued Germany from deepest distress. I thank thee
for my daily bread. Abideth thou long with me, forsaketh me
not, Fuehrer my Fuehrer, my faith and my light. Heil mein
Fuehrer (58).”
With President Obama regularly refusing to speak
with the name of and images pertaining to Christ in the
background in a manner similar to the way a vampire cringes
before a cross and with Youtube videos of songs such as
“Sanctuary” being applied to him that should only be applied
to Jesus, it is only a few short steps until the word “Fuehrer”

is replaced with “Barack” in that blasphemous invocation.
From her work as an historian in this particular
publication, one cannot decipher the politics of Jennifer
Keeley regarding the election and administration of Barack
Obama. However, if allowed to speak for themselves, the
facts and truths of history as chronicled in Life In The Hitler
Youth serve as a warning no freedom loving American can
afford to ignore.

Obama Gluts On Ten Ounce Burger

Those who have bent their knee in homage to our

nation's magnanimous liege will no doubt one day denounce
me in a People’s Court (not the TV show but rather a Soviet-
style show trial) for daring to nitpick the Chosen One to this
extent. However, it is their beloved leader, ladies and
gentleman, that insists that the COMMUNITY play a
prominent role in your every life decision.
In a campaign speech, Barack Obama lamented that,
during the Dark Ages before his ascent to the throne,
Americans were able to drive around in SUV’s, eat what
they wanted, and kept their homes climate controlled at 70
degrees. Liberals, Communitarians, and other related
socialist types who think that only those agreeing with them
should be permitted to open our mouths will shriek, “You’ve
already made this point in previous commentaries.” And I
am going to keep making it whenever Comrade Obama
violates these key tenets of leftwing dietary policy.
On 5/6/09, President Barack Obama and Vice
President Joe Biden motorcaded to an eatery in Northern

Virginia where our wondrous benefactor and one of his
foremost disciples supped upon the finest of ground bullock
for their midday meal. When average Americans engage in
these kinds of activities, few give it second thought and
pretty much the same response would be elicited if other
occupants of the Oval Office such as Ronald Reagan or
George W. Bush engaged in this gastronomic act. However,
seldom did these Chief Executives blatantly declare their
enmity to the minutest details of the American way of life
and vow to remake the nation along new lines.
For starters, while you are suppose to sit glum-faced
and ashamed that Americans enjoy a standard of living
above that of a Third World slum, Obama can fire up the
limo, which with its protective reinforced armor no doubt
makes it as much of a gas guzzler as a SUV, as well as the
Secret Service vehicles that need to accompany the
President. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to send someone
to get the burgers?
Better yet, doesn’t the White House have its own
gourmet kitchen capable of feeding nearly 150 people?
Catered now to by two chefs, his Highness is of such
sophisticated tastes that he had to bring his own personal
chef with him from Chicago (which also raises the question
that, if Michelle is not the one preparing the family meals, is
she really the ideal wife and mother propagandists have
made her out to be).
If these chefs are supposed to be able to prepare the
most succulent of culinary delights, shouldn’t they be able to
replicate any rotgut swill the President might develop a
hankering for? Which brings up another glaring hypocrisy.

Obama’s kitchen scullion was not granted his
commission because of his acumen around a saucepan.
Rather, he also spouts the Communitarian line that the
individual is not bright enough to figure out on their own the
“socially responsible” thing to eat.
Thus, to Obama, eating is not a personal activity.
Instead, it is one where the COMMUNITY ought to have
considerable say in determining what you get to ingest.
But perhaps just as disturbing and even more
dangerous than a President thinking he is exempt from the
expectations he mandates for the remainder of us is the
response the brainwashed dupes express in regards to this
man. Some happening to be in the eatery observed that
Obama stood in line just like everybody else.
Being impressed by this reveals the extent to which
America has declined. For in a democratic republic, where
no one is suppose to be perceived as better than anyone else
in terms of ontology, a President waiting in line should raise
no more eyebrows and be lavished with no more accolades
than the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker being
required to wait their turn in line like any other person.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a
hamburger. However, if the one enjoying the hamburger is
the very same person intending to use his very considerable
influence to prevent you from enjoying the same simple
pleasure, the act of mastication goes from being one of little
consequence to one of considerable public importance.

At Least Marie Antoinette Would Let Us Have

During his campaign for the presidency, Barack

Obama lamented the tendency of Americans to eat what we
want, drive SUV's, and keep our homes climate controlled at
70 degrees. Some will observe that I have already published
a number of columns regarding the aforementioned
sentiment. And I will continue to do so for as long as the
Obama's hypocritically admonish to the minutest detail how
we are to live lives of sacrificial austerity for the sake of the
COMMUNITY while they themselves wallow in opulent
According to, the President
attended a fundraiser in California primarily for the benefit
of Senator Barbara Boxer. Despite likely expending more in
fossil fuels to reach his destination than the average
suburbanite does puttering around town in a Ford Explorer
or Jeep Cherokee, the opulence did not stop there.
When most regular Americans have a get together,
they usually have cheese whiz and maybe Dominoes Pizza if
they really feel like splurging. Such provisions, however,
aren't quite good enough for those that not only think they
are better than the rest of us but that it is their place to run
our own lives as well.
According to, those paying over $17,000
per person to attend the fundraiser held at the Getty Mansion
ingested quail eggs and caviar, salmon, avocado on tortilla
chips, and Kobe beef short ribs with potatoes. For desert,
those gathered had buckwheat crepes with roasted cherries

and almond ice cream. If one is what one eats, wouldn't that
now make Obama "buckwheat" with one granted linguistic
amnesty from being denounced as racist since one would
simply be making a dietary observation.
As the type that expect to be praised and heralded for
all that they do, the Obamas didn't start a vegetable garden at
the White House as a way to relax by poking around in the
dirt at the end of the day. Rather, to the First Lady
especially, the very bounty of the Good Lord's earth is to be
co-opted for the purposes of scolding the American people
as to our ways deemed errant in the eyes of contemporary
world Bolshevism.
One of the obvious reasons behind the garden is to rub
the noses of American parents in the nutritional
insufficiencies of what they decide to feed their children.
For example, should the social conditioning proposed by
Frau Obama fully take hold, feeding your kids short ribs and
ice cream all in the same meal will probably be grounds for a
visit from social services should the neighbors catch wind of
The symbolism of the White House garden, however,
goes beyond the centrality of nutrition to healthy living. The
Obamas not only want to tell us what to eat but also from
where to eat.
Catching on among those ashamed for enjoying a
standard of living above that of Third World squalor are the
Slow Food and Locally Grown Food movements. According
to the advocates of these positions, the elites should
admonish we lowly masses to only consume non-processed
victuals grown in our respective areas. Most conveniently

fail to mention that, if this mindset replaced current food
production practices, Americans would be chained to their
kitchens (or wherever else these fanatics would allow us to
prepare our sustenance) and more importantly, what is to
prevent widespread starvation in areas where not much
grows in the winter.
But so long as the likes of the Obamas have full
bellies, it really doesn't matter what kind of gastronomical
hardship their policy idiosyncrasies might impose upon the
American people. It is the assumption, after all, among the
circle Obama is most comfortable with that the population
needs to be reduced anyway.
It has been argued that an army travels on its stomach.
Other than the relationships with God and family, none are
as profound as one's relationship with food.
A leader's attitude towards basic sustenance will
reveal a great deal about his underlying political philosophy.
Unfortunately, it seems Obama believes he is to be denied no
culinary delight while you as a mere commoner are to endure
happily a life of dietary aestheticism.

Obamaphiles Plot Media Takeover

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, should

government extend bailout funds to the nation's newspapers,
the end result will be the state dictating media content.
For did not Obama determine the minutest aspects of
GM and bank operations when these institutions fell for
government wiles? Bureaucrats ended up dictating where
conferences would be held and what models of automobiles

would continue to roll off the assembly line.
This has to happen by definition.
The Newspaper Revitalization Act being considered
by Congress would permit papers to reorganize as non-profit
501(C)(3) organizations.
This is the same part of the tax code that churches
have fallen for granting them formalized tax-exempt status.
In exchange for this favor from Leviathan, churches
are forbidden from participating in political activity such as
the endorsing of candidates for office.
However, the power to tax is the power to destroy and
even the most devout of pastors on fire for the Lord have
grown circumspect in how they address issues of public
concern from the pulpit as they dig for phraseology that
honors God's revelation without plunging their congregations
into financial ruination simply because some unrepentant
reprobate in the pew gets in a huff.
This will mean one of two things.
Either America's newspapers will become increasingly
bland as they strive to avoid stepping on the taxman's toes or
that there is an even more sinister thing going on in the form
of a religious persecution that will overlook newspapers
saying whatever they want but maintaining theological and
ideological shackles around the churches of America.

Will Religion Be Forced To Bow At Obama's


The White House has announced plans to expand its

Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In an address to the

National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said the
office would reach out to nonprofit organizations and "help
them determine how to make a bigger impact...and learn
their obligations under the law." From a number of things
said in the speech and that have transpired in relation to the
economic bailout, those who cherish both religious liberty
and sound theology should be deeply concerned.
Under the Bush Administration, those not wanting to
pollute the purity of their doctrine by accepting government
funds were pretty much free to say "No thank you".
However, under the Obama regime, will reluctant religious
organizations be permitted to back out amicably? Don't be
so sure.
In regards to the bailout of the nation's floundering
financial institutions, it has been insinuated that Wells Fargo
did not want the government's handout but had its arm
twisted by Lurch Jr, Hank Paulson, into accepting the funds.
For in the glorious opening days of socialism, no
organization or individual can be seen as better or sounder
than any other without at least some kind of penalty being
If an administration at one time as dedicated as that of
George W. Bush to liberty and free market principles can
begin to nationalize the economy on the turn of a dime, then
how much quicker will an administration already dedicated
to socialistic principles such as experts being able to order
your life better than you jump at the opportunity to manage
the minutest aspect of our lives?
For example, if financial institutions can be forced to
accept bailout money whether they want to or not, what is to

prevent this White House office from exerting pressure on
small churches and organizations not having the resources to
resist such coercion? And once these religious organizations
have buckled under to the demands as in the case of
financial institutions accepting assistance, what is to prevent
snobs in the Obama administration from dictating what
policy preferences and doctrines these institutions will then
be permitted to enunciate?
Those not accustomed to exercising spiritual
discernment wonder with befuddlement about what’s the big
deal with granting the government a more direct role in
influencing doctrinal content. After all, activists from both
sides of the spectrum hope to influence the values embodied
by the state.
That is correct, but that is for the church or other
institutions existing apart from the government playing their
role in the political process rather than the state imposing its
values on the other associations of private individuals to
decide. For when this is done in areas other than those
delineated constitutionally in a free republic, one begins to
step onto dangerous ground since the state is the only one of
these that can use force and confiscate property in the
process to ensure that its purposes prevail.
For example, at the national prayer breakfast,
President Obama remarked, "And today, strikes me that
this is one of the rare occasions that still brings the world
together in a moment of peace and goodwill.” It is this spirit
of peace and goodwill, one might argue, that President
Obama hopes to promote and expand through the Office of
Faith and Neighborhood partnerships.

However, the President’s remarks are rife with
contradictions as well as other assumptions in the
background regarding his worldview that will spell the
ruination of religious liberty if his ideas are allowed to come
to fruition. For example, Obama insists in his remarks,
“There is no God who condones the taking of innocent
human life.”
On the surface that is correct. However, that
seemingly simple utterance requires the discerning to dig
much deeper.
By making this statement and claiming to be a
religious man, Obama has proven himself to either be a liar
or deceived.
For example, recounting her testimony before the
Illinois state legislature, Jill Stanek recalled how uncaring
Obama seemed regarding a baby surviving an abortion that
was tossed aside like the contents of a used bedpan. So
either Obama must confess his complicity in the murder of
the innocent, admit he really doesn’t give a flip about the
laws of God, or that the God he serves really does condone
the taking of innocent human life.
As a master deceiver, one must parse and analyze
every word flowing from Obama’s lips at the decibel level of
Loud Howard from the Dilbert animated series. For while
trying to placate somnolent American Christians, he also
extends verbal overtures to the nation’s terrorist enemies.
One will note Obama declared, “There is no God who
condones taking the life of an innocent human being.”
Ladies and gentleman, you believe that as an American going
about your daily business that you have done nothing against

homicidal Muslims like those blowing up the World Trade
Center. However, in the eyes of terrorists, as an infidel, you
are far from innocent and thus a perfectly legitimate
deliberate target.
Even fellow Americans of a radical inclination such as
Ward Churchill (a likely Obama voter) likened those
working at the World Trade Center unto Adolf Eichman.
Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers’ primary regret was not having
planted more bombs as a member of the Weather
In the coming months and years ahead, don’t expect
President Obama to call upon the Islamofascists of the world
to moderate their beliefs and to embrace those aspects of
contemporary Western civilization superior to a medieval
Levantine mindset. Rather the obligation to alter your
beliefs will be imposed upon you, dear Biblicist.
In his first interview after assuming control of the
federal government, Barack Obama did not grant an
audience with a prominent American broadcaster such as
Barbara Walters, Larry King, or Sean Hannity. Instead, he
went crawling to an Arab propaganda outfit probably
infiltrated by Al Qaeda sleeper agents.
Yet in a move reminiscent of those duped into
advocating the unilateral disarmament position of the nuclear
freeze movement, of Americans, Obama expects, “I don’t
expect divisions to disappear overnight...But I do believe
that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then
perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will
begin to emerge. In a world that grows smaller by the day,
perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of

zealotry and make room for the healing power of
To Obama, destructive zealotry does not mean car
bombs, forcing women to wear bags over their heads, or
even holding “God Hates Fags” signs outside the funerals of
Americans having fallen in battle. In the viewpoint of
tolerance and open-mindedness of the new President, what
constitutes acceptable religious activity is actually quite
For example, from the quote, Obama enunciates that
he expects old rifts to mend and new partnerships to emerge.
In other words, you are entitled to believe whatever you
want so long as you don't believe that it is the only proper
way to believe or dare share this perspective with anyone
For example, according to Obama, in response to
criticism leveled against him by James Dobson of Focus on
the Family, it is no longer appropriate for believers to take
seriously Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.
Likewise, in an American ecclesiastical backdrop where the
Obama Administration is pulling the strings either overtly or
from behind the scenes, will Christians any longer be
permitted to believe that Christ is the only means of
salvation or to speak out on those areas where competing
belief systems fall short of Christianity?
This is a valid concern because, in the mind of
President Obama, the collectivist social democracies of the
world are seen as superior to America's more individualistic
republic. Yet in these regimes, the freedom to express one's
conscience is shaky at best.

For example, in Scandinavia, Pastor Akkie Green ran
afoul of the thought police for daring to exposit those
passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality. In England,
American talk radio personality Michael Savage was barred
entrance for being critical of Islam even though Islamic
militants are essentially granted permission to colonize the
land of the Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy, and
some of the world's most imaginative literature.
Things are little better with our neighbor to the north.
For example, a ministry in Canada lost its equivalent of our
tax exempt status for daring to point out where Jehovah's
Witnesses and other theologically aberrant groups differ
from establishmentarian Christianity. Mark Steyn and
McClean's magazine faced the possibility of being dragged
before a Human Rights Tribunal (basically a Stalinesque
kangaroo court) for "vilifying” Islam by pointing out what
terrorists have themselves publicly stated.
There is just so much those holding different religious
beliefs can do together before mutual affirmations veer
across the line into outright apostasy. For example, one can
have a Muslim doctor or Jewish accountant and even be
friends with these individuals. However, one is dangerously
close to making the state itself God when profound
theological differences are set aside in favor of so-called
“new partnerships” called for by leaders out to deceive all of
mankind irrespective of belief or creed.

Obama Advocates Domestic Violence

Speaking to the perceived inequalities between the

sexes in regards to domestic labor, President Obama said in
an NBC interview that he thought men "need to be knocked
across the head every once in a while."
Many would brush the comments aside as the Chief
Executive's attempt at humor. However, as the nation has
learned as of result of Rush Limbaugh's failure to acquire a
stake in the ownership of the Rams, some thoughts are so
vile that they cannot be enunciated according to the NFL
officials that denied the famed broadcaster this economic
What if Obama had said every once in a while women
need to be knocked across the head to be reminded of just
how good they have it in this county? Given that Michelle
had never felt pride in America until this past election cycle,
it seems this is a lesson he has failed to get across to his little
Radical feminists will respond that domestic violence
against women is something its victims are so ashamed of
that it can never be mentioned in a jocular manner.
Than isn’t it even more so when the victims are men?
For the last time I checked, there were not entire cable
networks and television programming blocks dedicated to
stories of the struggles of battered men or entire charities
established supposedly to address the needs of battered men
which quietly toss their daughters into the streets for having
reached an arbitrary age still well below the age of majority
and irrespective of whether or not these youngsters are

capable of providing for themselves.
It’s doubtful that Michelle Obama has done much
housework her entire married life. For even though the First
Lady has feigned an interest in puttering around in the dirt
with vegetables, she probably didn’t do much with the
bounty beyond the initial photo-op. For you see, the
Obama’s brought their private chef with them to the White
House, indicating Michelle has been neglecting this wifely
and motherly obligation for quite some time.
From the way Barack framed the issue, Michelle does
not really enjoy being a mother all that much. The
Benevolent Father (a title applied to Ming the Merciless on
the SciFi channel’s adaptation of Flash Gordon and now just
as applicable to the President of the United States since he
thinks he is qualified to speak on how to run our families
when he can’t even keep the country on track) said in the
interview, “Michelle was trying to figure out, OK, if the kids
get sick why is it that she’s the one who has to take time off
of her job to pick them up from school as opposed to me?
If...the girls need to shop for clothes...why is it her burden
and not mine?”
Well because, as to the clothes bit, if Barack (or any
other man for that matter) brought the wrong thing home, it
is going to be his rear that is going to get chewed out. As to
the more serious matter of a sick child, even though it is an
individual family matter to work out, if Michelle Obama is
going to cop such an attitude about the matter, perhaps she
should have not gotten married or had children in the first
If this is how the First Lady feels about things,

perhaps the Obama's are not the ideal parents the media
makes them out to be to which the rest of us fail to measure
up to. For parents (especially mothers) that really do put
their children above everything else don't go around
complaining about it when called upon to perform the most
basic parental functions. So instead of lecturing the rest of
us about the glories of mandatory voluntarism, perhaps
someone ought to give her an earful about how parents truly
dedicated to their children don't go around complaining
about those times when their children really do need them.
Often when certain people feel guilty about something
from their past or that of their family‘s, they become fanatic
to the other extreme and make it their mission to ferret out
less significant shortcomings in those around them. The
world is going to Hades in a handbasket, yet Obama thinks
one of the pressing concerns needing to be addressed is the
occasional absentmindedness of fathers who otherwise
provide and care for their families.
Obama told NBC, "There's no doubt that our family,
like a lot of families out there, were ones in which the men
are still a little obtuse about this stuff." That is putting it
mildly and frankly an insult to American fathers if they are to
be judged by what passed as male parenting in the Obama
family. And frankly, the way Barack's mother went pining
after Third World deadbeats and abandoned her son to
pursue anthropological studies in the area of Indonesian
blacksmithing, according to Jerome Corsi, she's hardly a role
model worthy of praise or emulation either.
Obama praised his father up one end and down the
other in his Inaugural address. In his memoir Dreams Of

My Father, Obama attempts to excuse his father’s behavior.
What is it exactly that Barack’s pappy is suppose to
have done? For starters, when he married Obama’s mother,
he had another wife in Kenya he conveniently failed to
As shameful as that is, I Timothy 5:18 teaches that the
person that doesn’t take care of their family is worse than an
infidel. And it seems Pappy Obama refused to take
advantage of the fresh starts America is renowned for and
that draw people here from around the world. Obama’s
father eventually essentially abandoned young Barack as
Pappy Obama just wasn’t a sappy provider and
nurturer. Barack’s half-brother Mark Okoth Obama
Ndesandjo in the book Nairobi To Shenzen contends that
their father was actually a wife beater.
No family is perfect. Both parents (that includes
mothers as well as fathers) often fail to live up to the perfect
ideal. However, short of profound negligence, it is not really
the place of the federal government in the personage of its
highest official to comment in an almost ex-cathedra fashion
as to what goes on in our homes as to household banalities
such as the division of domestic labor.

Renaming War On Terror Actually A War On

The Obama White House has more respect for the
homicidal enemies of the United States than it does for the
average American citizen. For while Obama operatives at

one point set up an email account to gather intelligence on
those critical of healthcare legislation and categorized those
questioning the need for end of life counseling as astroturf
protestors, it has been announced that America is no longer
at war with terrorism or even jihadists for that matter.
Instead of blowing this human scum into Sheol, the
administration plans to increase aide to foreign governments
that will no doubt come back to be used against Americans.
There is nothing quite like having the best enemy that money
can buy.
Despite their shortcomings, one must acknowledge
that America's enemies do not respect weakness. However,
that is exactly what the nation is projecting.
Changing what is said about the situation is not going
to change the situation. Nor is it going to change what the
enemies of the United States think about the United States or
their intentions towards Americans.
Interestingly, instead of mustering the intellectual
wherewithal to rise to the challenges to our freedom and
very existence, leaders throughout various institutions are
going out of their way to cater to Islamist preferences and
shackle Western perceptions.
Many policy eggheads are attempting to either
outthink the issue or to paint themselves with a veneer of
pseudo-sophistication by sneering down their noses that we
cannot refer to these malcontents as jihadists either since that
is a legitimate religious term meaning "to purify oneself or to
wage a holy struggle for a moral good."
This certainly creates a problem of how to refer to the
terrorist group Islamic Jihad if these words can no longer be

used in reference to that organization. I guess one is
suppose to use some kind of squiggly like Prince did when
he could not make up his mind as to what he wanted to be
This linguistic fickleness always prompts elites to
construct the conceptual cages that hinder the nation in the
conflict of ideas. For example, Americans are to disabuse
themselves of jihad’s negative connotations since the word is
precious to Mohammedans.
This is an expansion of a policy that has been
underway for nearly a decade. I remember that one of the
very first columns I published online dealt with lily-livered
Evangelicals all in an uproar over how it was inappropriate
to have a Bible college athletic team named the “Crusaders”
or to call revivalistic outreaches “crusades” since these
terms unsettle Muslims because of events transpiring
centuries ago that not a single Muslim alive today had to
endure. Forgiveness, obviously, is not a strongpoint of this
particular world religion.
Had America been this spineless throughout the
course of its history, it is doubtful that there would have been
an America for very long. But I suppose to the likes of
Barack Obama, that would make little difference since the
loyalties of Barack Obama and his family have often been
with those out to undermine this great nation.
Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor John Brennnan
pointed out to the Center For Strategic and International
Studies the impropriety of the phrase “the war on terror”
because as a tactic, “You can never fully defeat a tactic like
terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war

So does that mean we should refrain from using the
term "war" in relation to other implacable misfortunes and
tragedies that will plague mankind until Christ Himself sets
foot upon the Earth and sets all things right? Are liberals
going to give up their beloved "war on poverty" and the
resources devoted to this effort?
The Gospels note that the poor will always be with us.
Thus efforts to alleviate such deprivations are a waste of
time according to the war on terror analogy.
Around the world, radical Islamists don't care
whatsoever what they say as they enslave, maim, and kill
those daring to enunciate ideas and values different than their
own. And adopting an obsessive politeness bordering on
weakness is not going to change that.

Obama Teaches You Are Not As Important As


President Barack Obama addressed the graduating

class of Kalamazoo Central High School and personally
greeted each of the seniors to congratulate them for their
academic achievements.
This honor was extended, for the most part, because
of the class patting itself on the back for its lack of racial and
ethnic discord. In today's scholastic environment that
translates largely into the White students taking with a smile
plastered across their faces denouncement for and the
accepting of blame for the lion's share of the world's
problems as elaborated by leftist textbooks, multiculturalist

educators, and the discontented minorities that get worked
up into a froth as a result of such indoctrination.
Though a scathing column could be written on that in
and of itself, that isn't even the most glaring hypocrisy
surrounding this event.
As part of the security procedures surrounding the
President's visit, each of the seniors to be personally greeted
by the President had to submit to a Secret Service
background check.
What's wrong with that those conditioned to
submissively accept what they are told to do without a
second thought will reply. Nothing whatsoever, as in this
day of rampant violence, numerous precautions must be
taken to protect the life of the President.
It is just a shame that the President doesn't think that
your life is as valuable as his.
The first part of any background check consists of
verifying that the person is whom they claim to be by
examining their official documentation. Yet President
Obama and his law lad Eric Holder are among the foremost
critics of the state of Arizona for taking this most basic of
steps to protect its citizens and the residents legitimately
having the right to reside there from those that do not.
The Constitution expressly forbids in Article I, Section
9, Clause 8 the granting of titles that would establish the
creation of a nobility setting one class of citizen above
another as a matter of statutory formality. This means that,
as a matter of legal ontology, all Americans are equal at the
core of their being.
The President of the United States has every

reasonable expectation that those intending him harm will be
kept away from himself and his family. Is there any reason
as to why every other American should expect anything less
from our government in relation to ourselves as well?

Still Lessons To Be Learned From The Obama

School Address Controversy
Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of
the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of
government in the next. Likewise, totalitarian movements
such as Nazism and Communism expended considerable
resources on efforts designed to sway the youth of their
respective countries into embracing ideologies inimical to the
self interest of the student.
Viewing himself in the pantheon of historical figures
by which entire eras are remembered, Barack Obama also
realizes the necessity of claiming the hearts and minds of the
young if he is to transcend the chasm between that of mere
government administrator or even head of state to that of an
adored icon an entire culture or way of life is built upon.
Though the administration distanced itself from the
original lesson plan and disavowed any purpose for the
President's broadcast address other than to tell students to
stay in school, the fact that such a document was even
formulated provides a glimpse into the worldviews of the
influential at the highest levels of the bureaucracy and
administration. Therefore, even if the misbegotten
memorandum is scrubbed from the Internet and its existence
denied to the same extent as the Star Wars Christmas

special, it must still be scrutinized as part of the documentary
history of the United States.
Despite however White House operatives might spin it
now, the President and his handlers intended this speech to
be more than a simple welcoming of the school year. Each
section of the lesson plan revealed even more about the
intent of the section that preceded it.
According to the section titled “Before The Speech”,
teachers were instructed to have students read books about
Barack Obama. For high schoolers, would the President’s
operatives in the Department of Education endorse and
applaud works of a contrarian perspective such as
Obamanation by Jerome Corsi and The Culture Of
Corruption by Michelle Malkin, or is the suggestion merely
euphemism for laudatory tomes of a worshipful nature?
Another study question read, “Why is it important that
we listen to the President and other elected officials?...Why
is what they say important?” Just let the tone of that one
mull around in your brain for a moment.
From the way that is formulated, what the question is
calling for is unquestioning obedience. For if it didn’t, it
would also be accompanied with a question sparking the
realization that it is also important for elected officials to
listen to citizens.
In the section “During The Speech”, it is suggested in
a roundabout way that, instead of looking critically in terms
of what the President as a politician is trying to get over on
or swindle from the American people, students should
readily embrace whatever it is that the President is asking
them to do. No where were students asked to question

whether or not it is proper for the President to ask anything
of them beyond the purview of his delineated constitutional
It is bad enough for agents of the state to guide the
student through a mental exercise with the largely
predetermined goal of increasing the student’s fidelity to a
particular presidential administration. It is even worse when
plans are made to determine and catalogue the degree of
compliance on the part of students.
In the lesson plan, teachers were instructed to have
students record their thoughts on sticky notes and to write
down their goals on index cards. Big deal, some might say,
as such a format is quite transient and easily discardable.
Don’t be so sure. Often in the workplace, when
management wants to gather intelligence on the mere
laborers, workers are compelled to scribble our thoughts on
post-its that are then collected after a staff meeting.
These are then either tacked on a flipchart for
everyone to see or transcribed for later distribution as the
minutes of the meeting. Had the original lesson plan been
adhered to, what the students jotted down wouldn’t have
been something simply graded in terms of how well it was
thought out in terms of content or mechanics but something
ultimately forgotten about as the educational process moved
on, but these might have come back to haunt the students at
a later date.
For example, in the section of the lesson plan titled
"The Extension Of The Speech" teachers are instructed to
collect what the students have written and to post these
around the classroom where all can see them. Students are

to interview (or in other words interrogate) each other in
order to create a supportive COMMUNITY.
In other words, educators are to establish subdued
reeducation camps where students either denounce their
classmates failing to live up to the expectations of the
Obama regime or out of fear of peer pressure enunciate
aspirations that are in compliance with the prerogatives of
the group rather than their own or those of their respective
families. In a system of secularized government education,
even if I have no goal other than sitting on my rear-end after
I come home from work and stuff my face with bonbons
hour after hour, who is anyone to criticize me whatsoever?
Two of the greatest threats to the sanctity and
authority of the family is a peer group and a government that
do not uphold the corpus of Biblical values. As destructive
as questionable companions can be as a bad apple can spoil
the whole bunch, at least these won’t usually keep extensive
files for decades to come used to determine future
educational and occupational opportunities.
Had these assorted sticky notes, index cards, and
related scribblings been collected as suggested in the original
lesson plan they would have likely been forwarded
surreptitiously to the Departments of Education and
Homeland Security. For starters, they were already to be
kept until a later date and redistributed so that teachers might
be able to hold students accountable to these so-called
But beyond academic criteria such as grammar and
the application of facts to a formulated question, should
public educators be given the authority to evaluate aspects of

the life of the student beyond the classroom? Some might
respond that concerns of the ruminations of students being
turned over to be catalogued by the government is paranoid.
But is it really?
One provision in the lesson plan suggested that
students should be encouraged to submit two minute videos
to the Department of Education's "I Am What I Learn"
contest "explaining why education is important and how
their education will help them achieve their dreams." And
what if the student responds that education --- provided one
is able to rise above the swill urging intellectual conformity -
-- will assist them in realizing that the vast majority of
politicians are frauds and full of it?
Despite the fact that the government acting through
educational institutions exercises a degree of power to such
an extent as altering the course of students' lives, some are
disturbingly blasé about Obama’s desire to wrap his
tentacles even tighter around the minds of as many students
as possible. This attitude can shockingly be found even
among those claiming to be Conservative that really ought to
know better.
In his 9/7/09 column titled "The Obama Controversy -
-- What To Think", Albert Mohler proved just how quickly
some Christian leaders are willing to turn on their more
discerning brethren in order to appease the sophisticated and
curry favor with elites. In his opening paragraph, Mohler
questions, "Why would a speech calling for students to
remain in school and set personal goals for themselves incite
any controversy at all? Is this just another eruption of the
culture war?"

For a theological historian or historical theologian,
Mohler exhibits a disturbing misunderstanding regarding the
past, the so-called "orders of creation", and the public role of
believers in society.
Though an understanding of the Culture War has had
to advance beyond belief in the infallibility of the Republican
Party, shouldn't Mohler realize that there are things worth
fighting for and that much of the acrimony characterizing
American culture today is not the fault of believers or other
kinds of conservatives and libertarians wanting to mind their
own business and to raise their children in a spirit of
individuality and a religious adoration of the family's own
The fundamental issue at hand here is just whom has
God entrusted children to regarding those matters beyond
mere survival. Ought a child's worldview to be molded
primarily by largely law-abiding parents or by a federal
government that ultimately does not know the child and can
only care about the child in the most detached and abstract
Mohler writes, "At this level, the controversy is a
national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping
on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action by the
Obama administration as sinister or socialist. Our civic
culture is debased when opposing parties and political
alignments read every proposal by the other side as suspect
on its face.”
Is Mohler’s enthusiasm for gentility and manners
going to do him any good when his children are forcibly
hauled off for mandatory national service? Mohler might be

willing to swallow the party line that the President intended
nothing more for the day than to encourage students to strive
for their best (efforts for which these youngsters will actually
be penalized for as adults by Obama’s own policies),
however, there is indeed evidence that the Obama regime did
indeed have other intentions for the occasion.
The day President Obama enunciated his scholastic
oration, the Department of Homeland Security announced it
would be infiltrating the Girl Scouts. As part of the
President’s “My Education, My Future” initiative, Secretary
Janet Napolitano and the Chief Executive Officer of the Girl
Scouts of America unveiled a new emergency preparedness
merit patch.
To earn this honor, scouts must identify and prepare
for potential emergencies, learn about local alerts and
warning systems, and engage in community service. By
themselves, these things are neutral.
However, what should concern the astute American is
that the involvement of the Department of Homeland
Security goes beyond the publication of a few pamphlets and
workbooks. The initiative is to be administered by Citizen
Corps, a division of FEMA.
Does anyone honestly believe the program is going to
remain limited to memorizing public safety platitudes that
are the contemporary equivalent of either "stop, drop, and
roll" or "duck and cover"? Eventually, in the name of
defending the Motherland and public health, at first girl
scouts and eventually all children irrespective of whether or
not they belong to these organized youth movements will be
compelled to reveal to authorities what their parents

prepared for supper, how far they drove the car on the
weekend, and even if they have enunciated any reactionary
perspectives such as salvation being found only through
belief in Christ and marriage only being between a
monogamous man and a monogamous woman.
Unsettling as Obama's power grabs are, even more
disturbing is the ease with which some grant Obama a free
pass for the most ludicrous of reasons.
Contemporary mainstream Evangelicalism holds that,
since all people are equal ontologically irrespective of race,
all people should be held to the same standard. From that
flows the corollary that individuals should be held to the
very same criticism.
However, according to Albert Mohler, our response
should not so much be based on the objectivity of a specific
truth but rather tailored to pander to the preferences of a
particular group. Of the President’s remarks on education,
Mohler said, "Let's be honest here. Most middle-class white
kids get plenty of these messages, starting at home. But
might this message be particularly helpful for a child
struggling for a role model or looking for justifications for
his studiousness?"
In other words, middle class White parents should be
made to feel guilty for actually taking care of their progeny
instead of pawning them off on the social welfare system
while they go off clubbing in pursuit of the parent of their
next bastard child. If minority parents deliberately neglect
their children, that is their own fault and White people are
not obligated to take this unfortunate reality into account
when formulating their own parental decisions. It is just as

immoral for church officials to play on racial guilt as those in
It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal
vigilance. Provided a certain level of physical care is
maintained, parents (not government officials, credentialed
educators, or even eminent theologians) should be the ones
to determine through what form in what manner values and
the precious heritage of this great nation should be passed on
to their respective offspring.

Is The Rider Of The Red Horse Ascendant?

It seems that the slyest way to undermine the

Constitution is to claim to be defending it.
General Paul Vallely, through his front group, is calling for Barack Obama to step
down from the Presidency over allegations of deceit, fraud,
corruption, dishonesty, and for violating the oath of office
and the U.S. Constitution.
But while all of these are valid charges, the solution
presented indicates that the retired general may himself be an
aspiring despot waiting in the wings.
For instead of allowing the constitutional procedures
established by the Founding Fathers to guide the nation
through turbulent periods in its history, Vallely is insisting
that new elections must be held this very instant that are to
be authorized as a result of citizen petition.
The General claims "We can wait no longer for a
traditional transfer of power and a new government."
Such a proposal causes the discerning to wonder what

other provisions of the Constitution he would like to hack to
pieces with a bayonet. Because unless the nation goes
through an amendment process, there are no legal provisions
there for the kind of procedure he is calling for.
In the Book of Revelation, chapter 6, the text
describes those who are popularly referred to as the Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
In this passage, the student of Scripture is shown a
rider on a White Horse who is believed to conquer
peacefully through guile rather than bloodshed; he is then
followed by a Red Horse who brings war.
Though we are not yet in that period of history where
the events foretold in the pages of prophecy are being
ultimately fulfilled, with the ascension of Barack Obama, I
will continue to insist that what we are likely seeing is some
kind of dress rehearsal with stand-ins as Satan strategizes
and postures as to how he would like to see the narrative
If at this time Barack Obama is a placeholder for the
one that conquers through rhetoric and charisma, General
Vallely could very well be at this phase of the game one that
rallies to his cause the disaffected preferring deeds to words,
resulting in an outcome that is no more desirable than the
liberty eroding socialism of the Obama regime.
As a West Point graduate and career officer in the
U.S. military, General Vallely can be respected for his
contributions to the defense of this nation. However, history
gives good reason as to why ultimate control of the military
must rest in civilian hands, and no matter how noble their
service and their advice considered as a result, veterans

should have no more ultimate say than any other citizen that
claims to love America.

Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 2

In "Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1", I examined

the Black liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright and how
the leftist radicalism at the heart of this worldview serves as
the foundation of the belief system of President Barack
Obama and forms the basis of many of his policies. And
even though Obama claims to have renounced his
connections to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, since
Obama sat under this pastor for nearly 20 years and
continues to advocate these kinds of policies, it is obvious
Obama has not distanced himself from sociopolitical
radicalism to the extent he claims he has.
Even if Obama is successful in tossing under the rug
the insinuations of having embraced Afrosupremacist
theology, he has gone out of his way repeatedly to let the
world know he spent the early years of his career as a
community organizer. Obama supporters would have average
Americans believe that this position involved little more than
getting the plumbing fixed in rundown apartments or
organizing senior citizens outings to the local supermarket
for the elderly without their own transportation.
While these are laudable undertakings, these tasks do
not encapsulate the true purposes and intents of community
organizing. These are just the bait to lure the needy yet
unsuspecting into deeper levels of manipulation.
Though Barack Obama looked to Jeremiah Wright to

provide a theological foundation for his ambitions and life's
work, the danger the President represents goes beyond even
the vile message propagated by his religious mentor. For
despite his egregious faults, one has to hand it to Jeremiah
Wright that at least he is upfront about what he believes and
speaks his mind.
Obama's apostles have tried to place their liege's
hallowed past beyond the realm of critical scrutiny by
insinuating it is now racist to look into what exactly
community organizing is and that Jesus Himself was one.
However, it is anything but holy and nothing whatsoever to
do with race.
At its heart, community organizing is about
Communist agitation. In a National Review article titled
"What Did Obama Do As A Community Organizer", Byron
York defines community organizing as "the practice of
identifying a specific aggrieved population...and agitating
them until they become so upset about their condition that
they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or
federal officials to fix the problem often by giving the
affected group money."
It sounds like such an approach is morally neutral as it
doesn't differ on the surface all that much from the tactics
employed by any group along the political spectrum.
However, in the case of Barack Obama, this strategy would
be used to implement the kinds of things he learned from
Jeremiah Wright and the other acolytes of perdictious
The school of activism with which Obama aligned
himself employed such tactics in pursuits of obviously

radical leftist ends. Obama's employer the Calumet
Community Religious Conference embraced the doctrines of
Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky's magnum opus Rules For Radicals is
dedicated to none other than Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness.
Thus, if Obama was mentored by those who in turn took
their inspiration from the devil, by definition, doesn't that
make Obama none other than Satan's intellectual grandchild?
The original purpose of the Church was to use its
resources to assist the individual to get their lives
straightened out in the name and power of the Lord Jesus
Christ. However, under the rubric of social organizing, we
are to no longer view ourselves as responsible for ourselves
but instead as part of a COMMUNITY and with docility
take commands and instructions from those that have set
themselves up as the vanguard of the proletariat who are not
bound by the restrictions placed upon we lower breeds of
This is seen in terms of the denigration of American
icon John Wayne. In most of his films, John Wayne
portrayed characters that looked to their own moral
wherewithal or their families to solve their own problems.
Such thinking that is nowadays mocked used to be admired
as self-reliance. In the worldview of Barack Obama, we are
to have both our guns and our God wrest from us and are
instead to look to the state for purpose and to solve our
problems as epitomized by his remark that he wanted to
“make government cool again”.
Though he may not say it directly, but by examining
what Obama says and in analyzing it in light of its

implications and how he himself lives, one can legitimately
conclude that this would-be messiah thinks that you exist for
the benefit of the state and those like himself better than you.
For example, at the cornerstone of Obama’s social
philosophy is the plan to reduce the standard and quality of
life for the vast majority of Americans. In May 2008 in a
speech in Oregon, Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s
and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times.”
Does the average American really comprehend the
level of control being proposed here? Why in the name of
perdition does anyone want a president that thinks it is his
place to tell you what to drive, what you can eat, and how
warm you can keep your house? For any government that
can tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home
to that extent will eventually no longer permit you to live in
your own home for reasons of national security,
environmental sustainability, or whatever other bogus excuse
will be bandied about the day the mass roundups start.
Even worse, Obama does not live by the standard he
thinks ought to be imposed upon you. For while you are not
to eat anything not on a government approved menu or go
anywhere beyond the radius one can travel by unicycle or
pogostick, Obama does not sit home in the dark, shivering
with a blanket draped over his shoulders, munching on
The environment is no where near the point of
collapse that he wants you to be duped into believing. One
of the places Obama vacations is the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Though some esteem Obama with an almost messianic aura

and he has come close to applying such rhetoric to himself in
prattle about turning back the seas and such, I some how
doubt he walked to that particular destination.
Yet it is not enough for Obama that your life comes to
a screeching halt to assuage the environmental consciences
of big shot liberals such as himself and Al Gore (who has
obviously been eating whatever he wants since leaving the
Vice Presidency). Obama also wants your life regimented
and under close government scrutiny.
According to the sacred Barack, it is not enough for
the average citizen to mind their own business and take care
of one’s own family. Rather, one must surrender oneself to
the will of the group or the COMMUNITY.
As the next stage of the liberation theology he sat
under for nearly 20 years in the church overseen by Jeremiah
Wright, Obama postulated in a commencement address at
Wesleyan University in June 2008 that “our individual
salvation depends on collective salvation.” This is quite
revealing as to the underlying religious orientation of this
particular president.
In traditional Biblical theology, salvation is a state of
grace or unmerited favor imputed to the INDIVIDUAL
pardoning one from the penalty for sin because it is the
individual that must believe in Jesus as the only begotten
Son of God who lived the perfect life we could not, died,
and shed His blood as the penalty for our sins and rose from
the dead that we may have eternal life. However, to Barack
Obama, salvation is not about an eternal reward for loving
Jesus with one’s mind, body, and soul; rather salvation to
Barack Obama is about conformity to the group. You, as a

distinct consciousness, do not matter all that much.
This is evident in both Obama's policy proposals as
well as in his disdain for the behavioral principles underlying
the moral code based in Scripture that prevents some of
man's tendencies from degenerating into tyrannical anarchy
or collectivism if these desires become unshackled from the
realist perspective that man is a sinner and still hears sin’s
siren call even when forgiven and redeemed through the shed
blood of Christ.
To prevent the masses of the Biblically illiterate from
being swept away by Obama’s rhetorical manipulations, Dr.
James Dobson spoke out against some of the secular
messiah’s misinterpretations of the Good Book. Falling for
some of the hype that he’s the best thing since Jesus Christ
and actually the Lord’s replacement in the hearts of many,
Obama has proceeded to inform the rest of us which parts of
his “predecessor’s” Word may apply in the new “AB” era,
as some have suggested all of history now be divided
between before and after Obama.
Without a more careful exegesis into and research of
the Biblical text, the holy Obama concluded that, if one
thinks that prohibitions against homosexuality still apply
today, than those against the consumption of shellfish still
apply as well. In response, according to a 6/24/08
Associated Press article titled “Obama: Dobson Is Making
Stuff Up With Bible Criticism”, Dobson dared to say of
Obama’s assertion, “I think he’s [Obama] deliberately
distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his
own worldview, his own confused theology.”
Dobson’s opinion is actually closer to the historic

Christian position. Most denominations and theologians
claim that the majority of Israelite dietary guidelines do not
apply to the Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles
because these restrictions were not reiterated in the New
Testament and in fact were set aside in various passages.
For example, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus Himself assures
that that one is not defiled by what goes into one’s mouth but
rather by what comes out of it. And in Acts 10, the Apostle
Peter is told in a vision to deliberately eat of an animal said
to be ceremonially unclean. If the act of eating a particular
kind of animal was in and of itself immoral and sinful, would
the God of the universe have given instructions to have done
The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Nowhere
are the Old Testament injunctions labeling the practice as
wrong rescinded in the New and in fact they are
reemphasized in passages such as Romans 1 and included in
a list of offences barring their perpetrators from entering
Heaven if one does not seek forgiveness for them through
the shed blood of Christ.
And contrary to all the sissies in a hissy over Rick
Warren offering the inauguration prayer because Warren did
not endorse the notion of gay marriage, insisting that this
lifestyle is wrong does not mean that those falling into this
temptation will be rounded up and sent to prison (though a
percentage would probably enjoy that) or be put to death. It
could be argued that Jesus softened the penalty for the
transgressions of the lustful flesh.
Though Jesus was merciful He nevertheless retained
the position that what the women at the well did was sin by

telling her to sin no more. Today, those wanting to air their
dirty laundry with pride rather than keeping it between only
God and themselves as those with a tender conscience would
prefer, vociferously insist that what they have done isn’t
even sin.
And in the eyes of mystical humanists such as Obama
and his ministerial supporters in the Order of the Scarlet
Woman, this is the area in which Dobson has done
something unforgivable. Dobson has held on to the notion
that sin, in its most basic form, is an individual act.
According to Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who basically
endorsed Obama for no other reason than that Obama is
Black as before Caldwell supported George W. Bush, said
Dobson was “a bit over the top”, and “crossed the line”.
More importantly, Caldwell admonished, “There has been a
call for a higher level of politics and politicking. So to attack
at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we
at least want to hold everybody accountable.”
Ladies and gentlemen, what is being called for here is
an abridgement of the fundamental constitutional liberties of
anyone daring to disagree with or even question the new
messiah. For while Dr. Dobson has been told to essentially
sit down and shut up, a cabal of leftwing clerics of which
Cadwell has been numbered established a website called Examining the
group’s fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding
the new social gospel that elevates the group above the
For example, the website proclaimed regarding
Dobson, “He doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as

a wedge to divide.” Let’s look at this for a moment.
Aren’t Obama, his false prophet Jeremiah Wright, and
lesser luminaries such as Rev. Caldwell each riding the
coattails of each using religion to divide? For crying out
loud, the Black liberation theology expounded by Jeremiah
Wright thinks God doesn’t even love you if you are White.
Furthermore, who says religion is not meant to divide?
While Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any
should perish, there are just as many other passages
informing us that Christ came to separate the sheep from the
goats, the wheat from the chaff.
Also, interesting, isn’t it, how in the coming together
in unity that it is those holding to a traditional understanding
of Biblical morality that are to compromise their standards
rather than those who fall short of these principles and from
then on strive to elevate their conduct?
As the declaration points out, “What does speak for
me is David’s Psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is
when we come together in unity.” That is true, but in order to
unite, there must be considerable agreement as to what
principles one is going to unite around. Of those with whom
one disagrees considerably, the Bible commands, “Come
from out among them and be ye separate.”
The declaration continues, “James Dobson doesn’t
speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of
attack; He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his
neighbors’ views when they don’t line up with his.”
As noted earlier, by criticizing Dobson’s criticizing,
aren’t they themselves guilty of criticizing? Did not the holy
Barack partake of the same act?

What if Dobson's neighbor was a vile skinhead that
plucked the eyes out of newborn kittens? Is Dobson just
suppose to sit there and not say anything about this ethical
transgression as well if we are to take the mutated
uncontextualized version of judge not to its ultimate
Contrary to the Obamaist declaration, Dobson does
not confine the values of faith to two or three issues. First
off, Focus on the Family is not a church.
Thus, the organization does not necessarily have the
same spiritual mandate to address to the same extent the
totality of existence of life that God's sacred assembly has
been called to. Yet that said, Focus on the Family addresses
a wider array of issues and concerns than these liberal Black
churches that have for the most part confined their message
to propagating the blame Whitey mentality of whom
Republicans and Conservatives rank their primary targets.
From the tone of the declaration, Dobson stands
accused of not seeking justice, encouraging the oppressed,
or defending the cause of the vulnerable. Yet when Dobson
rises to do so, these collared hypocrites accuse him of
reducing the faith to two or three issues and not working to
restore what is broken in our communities. If the efforts of
Focus on the Family have been reduced to two or three
issues, it is only because that apostates like Obama and his
supporters have focused their war against Christ and the
Bible towards a few central cultural pillars in the hopes of
causing the entire edifice of our heritage of liberty to
implode in upon itself.
Unable to speak or act on their own behalf, who is

more innocent than the unborn that the babykillers can’t wait
to hack apart with their meat cleavers? What institution is
more vulnerable than the contemporary family with the
assorted threats out to achieve its abolition through easy
divorce, its dilution through its alleged recognized extension
to homosexuals, and through the proliferation of government
programs that make parents of both sexes feel either
redundant in the case of men as providers or obsolete in the
case of work at home mothers.
Leftist clergy drone on and on about the beauty of
religious unity and cooperation. However, if they are going
to embrace practices such as infanticide and sodomite
nuptials as good and positive things, one might as well toss
the Bible in the paper shredder and sleep in Sunday morning.
Under such a worldview, nothing is wrong anymore and you
might as well do whatever the Sheol you please.
Under the Obama regime, while your obligation to
God might be diminished, don’t think you are going to slide
by on easy street in terms of guilt being toned down. Rather
a whole new litany of demands will be placed upon an
otherwise productive citizen.
In commencement addresses given in both 2008 and
2009, Obama repeatedly called for a renewed spirit of
national service. To most Americans accustomed to working
for what they have, on the surface this may sound like little
more than what they are already doing. However, the plans
go much shockingly further.
In the free market economy of the United States, the
individual offers some kind of commodity --- be it labor, a
tangible good produced, brainpower, or time --- in exchange

for monetary compensation. And though the system is not
perfect, the higher the participant rises in the system, the
greater the rewarding compensation one is able to accrue.
However, that may come to a screeching halt if our
Seigneur and Chief gets to have his way. For in his
worldview, no longer will it be enough to strive within the
rules to get the things one wants. Rather in a manner not
unlike a medieval manor, if the New World Order advocated
by a succession of presidents each in their own way with
distinctive emphases comes to pass, you will be bound to the
same occupational station and residential area not until you
as a free person decides to change it but rather until those
higher up the system decide to amend such biographical
In his 2008 commencement address, Obama said,
“There’s no community service requirement in the real
world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your
diploma, walk off stage, and chase only after the big house
and the nice suits and all the other things our money, culture
says, you should buy. You can choose to narrow your
concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your
story separate from America’s.”
Obama cites as precedent his own case where he took
a position as a community organizer making $12,000 per
year while driving a $2,000 car. But whereas you are
suppose to remain content at a life of minimal toil, since
Obama has always been in his own mind the man who would
be king, he was always entitled to possess so much more.
According to an Investor’s Business Daily article
posted at Yahoo News on 6/2/2008 titled “Living On

Obama’s Collective Farm", Obama made over $4 million
that year. But I guess that’s what it takes to keep a ball-and-
chain like Michelle in $500 athletic shoes far uglier than my
$20 K-Mart ones and $5000 handbags (a good used
automobile doesn’t cost much more than that).
From comparing these dichotomies, one can conclude
that Obama does not really care so much about the poor.
Rather, in true Alinskyite fashion, he sees those in such
circumstances as pawns to agitate into a froth through which
to seize power and advance his own status. If it had meant a
life of toil and anonymity as it does for most dedicating their
lives to uplifting the poverty-stricken, would Obama have
even pursued this path in his early career?
As to whether or not Obama will allow participation
in national service to remain an individual choice is open to
interpretation. In the 2008 address, Obama went on to say,
“On the big issues that our nation faces, difficult choices
await. We’ll have to face some hard truths, and some
sacrifice will be required --- not only from you individually,
but from the nation as a whole.” But in light of $5000
handbags, weekend jaunts onboard Air Force I to Broadway
plays, and pizza chefs flown in from the Midwest to appease
a gastronomical hankering, that call does not apply to his
highness of course.
Often, those without an inclination towards politics
shrug their shoulders at these grandiose pronouncements and
go about their business thinking that those in authority won't
go much beyond the stage of public elocution. However, this
time around such disengaged citizens might not be so

The President's ball-and-chain Michelle said in a
campaign speech, "Barack Obama will require you to work.
He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That
you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your
comfort zone...Barack Obama will never allow you to go
back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Listen up, you battle ax, I'll be as cynical as I want to
be. Your hubby might have been a Professor of
Constitutional Law, but apparently he was as dedicated to
that occupational station as he was to his seat in the Illinois
State House, where he regularly and decisively voted
“present”, and to the U.S. Senate, where his attendance was
shoddy at best as he merely used that office to campaign for
the presidency and to pull down a hefty paycheck while
doing it.
The First Amendment protects the rights of the
individual to believe whatever they want and to enunciate
their opinion as to the actions and motivations of the nation’s
leaders. This includes saying that these politicians are little
more than frauds. Any legislation or executive order to the
contrary is an infringement of this Constitutional protection.
And as to being isolated and in one’s “comfort zone”,
so long as one pays their bills and stays to themselves, they
have the right to be every bit of a hermit as they want to be.
Until any President can lock down the border and prevent
illegal aliens from violating the territorial integrity of the
United States, the Chief Executive has so failed in his
fundamental responsibility that he ant those that work
beneath him should have no spare time whatsoever to be
concerned with how I spend my own time.

Though the discerning might have to weave the
disparate fragments together into a complete tapestry, the
minions of despotism and iniquity are so full of themselves
that they cannot resist scattering crumbs and often wholesale
cognitive meals detailing their intentions to destroy liberty
and reduce the population to the level of modern day serfs.
Shame is, the election of Barack Obama is proof how a
significant percentage of the American people would rather
ignore the harsh realties staring them right in the face.

Since They Were Asked....

In a article dated 1/21/09 titled

"Obama Is Like Biblical Joshua, Boxing Promoter Don King
Says", a number of celebrities were asked which Biblical
character Barack Obama was most like. As a largely left-
leaning segment of the population, these celebrities were
quite positive in their responses and comparisons.
As one can deduce from the CNSNews article title,
Don King likened Obama to Joshua. Denzel Washington's
mother placed this particular President under consideration
in the company of Paul, Moses, and John the Baptist.
However, from the reasons given by these and other
celebrities interviewed for this article, I would liken Barack
Obama to another character prominent in the pages of
Scripture. That would be none other than the Anti-Christ.
Acolytes of tolerance will reflexively lament, "How
dare you make such comparisons!!!" Others of a similar
mindset seeking to affect an air of suave detachment will
pontificate how that in all likelihood Barack Obama is not

the Anti-Christ.
Such condemnatory apoplexy actually proves my
point. For if you are going to condemn me for saying that
Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ when I actually said Barack
Obama is LIKE the Anti-Christ, you must also condemn Don
King for saying Barack Obama IS Joshua.
Preeminent theologian and historian Smoky Robinson
ruminated about Obama, "He has changed my life just like
he has changed your life." Oprah Winfrey, who in these
dress rehearsals to the Apocalypse is playing the part of the
Scarlet Woman that rides the Beast in that her universalist
apostasy will propel into power the Beast who will discard
her once he has gotten what he wants from her, says of her
new lord, "He makes me want to be a better human being."
Those placing tolerance and diversity above
commonsense can deny it all they want. But Barack Obama
shares a number of creepy similarities with the foretold Son
of Perdition.
Though likely not the Anti-Christ, if Obama's devotees
want to start invoking Biblical allusions, this particular
President seems to have a lot more in common with the Son
of Perdition than the Son of God.
For example, it says in the Book of Revelation that the
Beast will have power over all tribes, kindreds, and tongues.
It is believed that the Anti-Christ will unite the world though
it will only be for a short while in a confederated world
As a transracial figure straddling both the Western and
Afro-Islamic worlds, Obama meets a number of these
characteristics from at least a photogenic standpoint.

Though it might not hold up to the rigors of
contemporary logic and cultivated preferences, one of the
reluctances towards interracial matrimony, even among those
doctrinally consenting to the fact that all varieties of the
human species can be traced back to Noah and Adam, is that
a monochromatic humanity would fall as prey easier to an
aspiring world tyrant. Though this should not be taken as an
absolutist prohibition against individual choices and
preference, there must have been something to such a theory
for God to have split humanity up into different nations
following the Tower of Babel.
Those wanting to cast themselves in the most
progressivist color possible will respond, "But that verse
initially refers to language." And that is absolutely correct.
However, it is through that linguistic separation that
the groups split off from one another and became the
potpourri of ethnicities and races (perhaps those such as Ken
Ham and Hank Hanegraaff that get all up on their exegetical
high horse about that particular term would prefer the word
breeds) that we have in the world today. Though a nation
may accept a limited number of individuals from other
nations and cultures, unless those coming into the country in
question are willing to adopt the ways of the land in
question, there will be inevitable conflict and discord.
Those steeped in hypertolerance as a creedal faith will
respond, “How dare you promote DIVISSIVENESS,
EXCLUSION, ETHNOCENTRISM. No culture is better
than any other and we are all one human family.”
Maybe so, but you do not always live in close
proximity to your distant relatives. And you will notice that

many of those opposed to preserving the West’s
ethnographic identity (especially that of the United States)
get in an uproar about America spreading its identity abroad
at the expense of so-called indigenous traditions and
COMMUNITIES. You will also notice that those usually
advocating such a perspective do not live in mud huts or
wear grass skirts but rather enjoy the finest furnishings that
the developed Western economies can provide (though their
offspring are quite another matter in terms of tattoos and
piercings in bodily appendages other than through their
Like Obama, the Anti-Christ will attempt to
implement his regime through a campaign of peace. I
Thessalonians 5:3 says, "For when they say Peace and
safety, then sudden destruction shall be upon them,"
Eschatologists (theologians speculating on the End
Times) teach that the Tribulation will commence when the
Beast signs some kind of peace treaty, especially with Israel.
Others have interpreted that the iron mixed with clay in the
vision of the graven image from the Book of Daniel that
symbolizes a number of history's greatest empires as
meaning that the Anti-Christ may take over just as much
through democracy and negotiation rather than solely though
the outright force that steel or iron would denote.
Some might dismiss the adulation of Obama as a
figure of Biblical proportions as the hyperbole for which
both thespians and religious types are known. For in the
eyes of the technocratic elites, neither of these social
categories are appreciated for their brainpower. However,
adulatory sentiments of a disturbingly worshipful nature have

also been enunciated by mouthpieces of the
establishmentarian secular press that no person with a lick of
level-headed commonsense would say about another mortal
Harold Meyerson in a Jan. 21, 2009 piece in the
Washington Post titled "Words Made Flesh" lauded Obama's
socialistic redistributive economic policies. The Biblically
literate will quickly recognize that title is offensively close to
a concept that should only apply to Christ; so much so that if
Christians acted in a manner similar to Muslims every time
they heard something shocking about their faith, the one
making it would end up being Salmon Rushdie's roommate.
John 1:14 says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
The sophisticated will dismissively retort that such
sentiments were merely exaggerated accolades stoked by the
excitement of inaugural festivities. Since then, most
Americans have become more realistic in their assessment of
the Obama Administration.
The average American duped by Obama might be
coming to their senses about him and those that have always
opposed him have had many of their worst suspicions
confirmed. However, to elites that will determine how you
are going to live if they allow you to live at all, the
worshipful fanaticism continues even with the opening years
of Obama's presidency coming to a close.
In an editorial, Denmark's largest newspaper, the
Politiken, insisted that President Obama is a figure of greater
importance than Jesus. After all, these Scandinavian

apostates claim, what Jesus did can be interpreted in so
many different ways as to be nearly useless from an
objective standpoint. Obama, on the other hand, has insured
“the right of every America not to be financially shipwrecked
when their health fails...the biggest ever financial support
package in American history, a major disarmament
agreement, and the quickest-ever re-establishment of
American reputation.”
This makes it sound like being nailed to the cross, one
of the most painful form of execution known throughout the
ages, is nothing more than a day at the spa. Some might
conclude, that with such blasphemy rampant across Northern
Europe, no wonder that continent is about to totter off the
edge of history as a result of Muslim conquest.
Things are little better among America's own leftist
media. According to a WorldNetDaily article titled
"Newspaper: Obama, Of Course, Greater Than Creator
God", the associate editor of a campus student body
newspaper said that Obama was her "homeboy". By this,
the aspiring journalist meant that Obama plays a role in her
life that the most devout usually reserve for Jesus.
Obama might end up being responsible for putting a
good many of us in our deathbeds if a number of his policies
are not turned back before it is too late. However, it is
doubtful one's faith in him will provide one with much
comfort as one is translated into the next existence.
At this point along the eschatological timeline (that
chronology that unfolds as we move ever onward towards
the final moments of this age), no Bible scholar worthy of
respect as such can as of yet deliver a definitive answer as to

the identify of the Anti-Christ referred to in the prophetic
portions of Scripture. However, only those deliberately
turning a blind eye to the events around us are unable to see
that President Barack Obama thinks more of himself than
any human being really ought and that the scariest thing
about that is how he plans to drag the rest of us down with

About The Author

Frederick Meekins is an Internet columnist and blogger.

Frederick holds a Bachelor of Science in Political Science &
History from the University of Maryland University College,
a MA in Apologetics & Christian Philosophy from Trinity
Theological Seminary, a Doctor Of Practical Theology from
the Master's School of Divinity, and a Doctor of Divinity
from Slidell Baptist Seminary. Dr. Meekins is pursuing a
Ph.D. in Christian Apologetics through Newburgh
Theological Seminary.