This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
by 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
Christendom. 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 vandal. 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 whatsoever. 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 spine. 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 PseudoMessiah. 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 MSN.com. 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 them. 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 WorldNetDaily.com 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 brought. 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 republic. 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 against. 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 antiAmerican 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 leader...in 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 frustrations.” 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 sentiment...as 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 people. 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 areas. 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 generations. 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 there..." 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 MSNBC.com 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 error? 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 grave. 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 aisles. 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 separately? 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 parted. 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 WorldNetDaily.com 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 people. 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 socalled "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 "right35
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 policy. 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 tattoo. 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 debaucheries. 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, conservative? 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 Star-Telegram.com 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 either. 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 themselves). 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 investigation. 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!: HelenaWest Helena Implements Curfew For All Ages," a resident told a reporter with MyEyeWitnessNews.com, "..you 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 want. 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 quarantine. 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 economy. 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 alternatives. 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 correct. 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 criminals. 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 soulsearching 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 preagricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasseswhipped 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 out? 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 Office. 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, limp53
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 expectation.
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
class. 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 politics." 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 influence. 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 widescale 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 favoritism. 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 of.” 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 presidency. 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 Dangers
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 Sovietstyle 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 Cake
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 luxury. According to NBCBayArea.com, 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 SFGate.com, 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 it. 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 Feet?
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 inflicted. 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,...it 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 Underground. 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 understanding.” 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 narrow. 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 else. 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 opportunity. 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 woman. 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 place. 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 mention. 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 well. 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 America
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 called. 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
itself.” 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 Him
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 authority. 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 “goals”. 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 choosing. 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 manners? 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 government. 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 StandUpAmericaus.com, 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 unfold. 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 revolution. 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 humanity. 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 saltines. 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 so? 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 JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. Examining the group’s fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding the new social gospel that elevates the group above the individual. 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 conclusion? 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 characteristics. 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-andchain 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 insightful.
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 CNSNews.com 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 leftleaning 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 government. 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 ears). 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 being. 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 him. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.