The case against re-electing Barack Hussein Obama, part 1
May 27, 2011
Who is this Barack Obama person, really?Over the next several weeks and months, we will lay out the reasons why Barack Hussein Obama should not be re-elected President of the United States. In this, the inaugural installment of that series, we will take a bird’s eye look at the man himself – what makes him tick, and why he governs the way he does.
We all know that Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States. We also know that he is the son of a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas – that much can be seen at his official White House biography.
That biography also states:
After working his way through college with the help of scholarships and student loans, President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked with a group of churches to help rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.And not much else, other than a couple paragraphs of political campaign blah.
He went on to attend law school, where he became the first African—American president of the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in his community.
But who, really, is Barack Hussein Obama and what made him the man he is today?
Almost everything about him is surrounded in mystery or is the source of never-ending questions and conspiracy.
Even his birth has been questioned.
Although the White House produced a certificate that says he was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961, the document has come under intense scrutiny by many who say it was either edited or is a complete forgery.
Even if the document is true and accurate, some – like WND Editor Joseph Farah, say he is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by the Constitution.
He never served in the military, and his political resume prior to being elected President is one of the shortest in modern political history. He never served as a Governor, nor has he ever served in any executive position – a point made repeatedly by his GOP opponent in 2008.
To say his rise to power has been meteoric is a bit of an understatement.
He served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 – 2004 and was elected to the United States Senate in 2004. Most of his tenure in the Senate was spent campaigning for President.
But the argument can – and should be made that Barack Obama is the most divisive, radical, left wing President to ever occupy the Oval Office.
One gets a glimpse into the psyche of the man by reading his books, Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope.
Several quotes from these books are currently making the rounds on the Internet, and while some are taken a bit out of context, they nevertheless portray an angry man struggling with his mixed racial heritage.
They also reveal a man who, prior to his baptism, was “dabbling with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the sixties.”
But Obama also showed an affinity for Marxism while in college.
In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.One of those “Marxist professors” was one Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party who was allegedly under investigation by the FBI as a possible spy for the Soviet Union.
Among his early political acquaintances was Bill Ayers – the man who bombed the Pentagon while part of the Vietnam War era group Weather Underground. To this day, Ayers has no regrets for his anti-American activities.
Throughout his political career, Obama has supported socialist ideas, including redistribution of wealth. In a 2001 radio interview, Obama explained:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.It is not a stretch to say his policies are intended to bring about redistribution of wealth. (More on Obama’s policies will be covered in future installments of this series.)
Keep in mind this is a man who also sat under the spiritual tutelage of a man who said America’s “chickens have come home to roost.”
For twenty years, Obama called the Trinity United Church of Christ his church home. That church, under the leadership of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, taught a religious doctrine known as Black Liberation Theology.
Black Liberation Theology has its roots in Marxism, and encourages a victim mentality among its followers.
In a rather lengthy dissertation on Black Liberation Theology, Anthony B. Bradley notes:
McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.Sound familiar?
Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.
Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?
It should – as any criticism of the President is instantly dismissed as racism.
This may help explain his penchant for policies that are at best, socialist in nature.
But what about his policies towards Israel and the Muslim world?
An August 2010 poll showed that 18 percent of Americans believed that Obama was a Muslim. Naturally, the media decided the notion had to be squashed, and fast. Practically every report on the poll inserted the qualifier, “incorrectly” to make sure the masses knew this was not a correct thought:
An article that appeared in Israel Today in April quoted an Egyptian diplomat as saying on Nile TV, “the American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim”. Statements like this, whether true or not, only add fuel to the fire.It is true that the young Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia – a fact that has opened a whole separate can of worms. In January 2008, Daniel Pipes wrote:
In an interview conducted by ABC News in September 2008, then candidate Obama slipped and referred to his “Muslim faith” before George Stephanopolous corrected him. During the entire campaign, his middle name - Hussein - was off-limits out of fear voters would think he was a Muslim. By now, everyone knows his father was a Muslim and he was educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia. However, in 2008, Obama did all he could to de-emphasize that aspect of his life.
In a recent analysis, "Was Barack Obama a Muslim?" I surveyed available evidence and found it suggests "Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father." In response, David Brock's organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), which calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," has criticized one of my sources of information.In recent days, Obama suggested Israel return to its 1967 borders, effectively dividing Jerusalem and placing many Christian and Jewish holy sites in Hamas control. The move outraged Israelis as well as many in the U.S.
For the first time, many in Israel believe they no longer have a friend in the White House. The Jerusalem Post reported:
When asked in the poll whether they saw Obama’s administration as more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral, just 12 percent of Israeli Jews surveyed said more pro-Israel, while 40% said more pro-Palestinian, 34% said neutral and 13% did not express an opinion.Who is this man, Barack Hussein Obama? Arguably, he is the most divisive, radical left wing ideologue ever to be elected President.
In 2008, many ignored his background and bought into the “hope and change” bumper sticker campaign.
Hopefully, Americans have seen the light and will vote for real change.
Coming in the next installment: Obama vs. the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment