"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
"My Christian faith compels me to acknowledge that marriage was instituted by God as an exclusively heterosexual covenant," Sen. Obama said. "In fact, the California constitution's preamble actually affirms God's sovereignty saying, "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
"However," he said, "when the courts determine that a constitution, under God, permits something God forbids, the Harvard law school grad in me has to respect that. I believe the people pushing Proposition 8 are wrong to try to ban a practice that I also think is wrong, by changing a constitution that acknowledges God's in charge in order to prevent something God opposes."
In order to keep susceptible Christian voters (including many Black Americans) from suspecting his leadership, Barack Obama has flaunted his belief in God, and pretended to have views that align with Christian teachings. This pretense has been particularly on display when it comes to his statements about marriage. You see, he's not in favor of gay marriage. He's just against any effort to prevent it from being forced upon resistant majorities throughout the United States.
Like his position on child-murder, this stance repeats the corrupted logic characteristic of nineteenth century Whig politicians anxious to curry favor with pro-slavery forces without losing votes from anti-slavery constituents. The pro-slavery forces were determined to prevent States with anti-slavery majorities from interfering by law with the spread of slavery. Meanwhile, they worked to secure a Supreme Court ruling that would enshrine slave ownership as a constitutionally protected property right. This was the gist of the pro-slavery conspiracy Abraham Lincoln shrewdly espied in his famous "House Divided' speech (from which I recently quoted the relevant conclusion.)
Like those not altogether deceitful antebellum Whig politicos, Obama wears two masks. Of course, neither represents his true face. For example, he pretends to respect the requirements of loving human relationships. Meanwhile, he pushes a health proposal that would substitute impersonal calculations and bureaucratic formulas for decisions that reflect the loving relations that are supposed to exist between children and their aging parents or grandparents. He makes a show of respect for the existence of God, and even alludes to the people's grateful acknowledgment of God' authority as the source of freedom. But meanwhile, he systematically denies the obligation of the people conscientiously to respect God's authority in their use of the freedom they obtain from Him.
We get a glimpse of Obama's true face, however, when he makes clear that the attitude that governs his thinking is not his respect for people, his respect for God or his respect for constitutions established in light of God's authority. It is subservience to the dogmas inculcated by his Harvard Law School education. This includes the self-serving doctrine that, once they become judges, lawyers like himself can dictate the content of constitutions and laws regardless of the will of God or the consent of the people.
Obama pretends to believe in God while denying, in practice, the sovereignty of God. What else are we to make of the obnoxious doctrine that it's "wrong to try to ban a practice…in order to prevent something God opposes." According to the Ten Commandments, God opposes murder, theft and perjury. Is it wrong to try to ban such practices? Obviously not; but in all fairness, Obama doesn't say it's wrong to ban them. He says that it's wrong to ban them "in order to prevent something God opposes." The wrongness consists in the aim or intention to respect the will of God.
As all Christians know, Christ says that we should seek first the kingdom of God, i.e., the place where God is sovereign. The primary motive of Christian action is therefore respect for God's sovereignty. Obama claims to be a Christian. Yet he declares that it's wrong for people to act "in order to prevent something God opposes." He says it's wrong for them to act with the aim or motive Christ prescribes as the first priority of Christian conscience.
Clearly, Obama believes that in the political realm it's wrong to be motivated by respect for God's sovereignty; in the political realm, it's wrong to acknowledge God's will as the basis for action. Now, our motive is that which gives rise to our motions, the will in consequence of which motion takes place. But what has life without motion? What indeed, except for God. According to Christian belief, God set the universe in motion. He is the source of all creation. So all living things move and have their life in consequence of His will. As Creator, ruler and judge of the universe His authority is invoked in the political document that first declared the independence of the United States.
For all his lip service to God, Obama takes the contrary position that the political realm somehow lies outside of God's kingdom. Political action may not properly be based on an effort to "prevent what God opposes", i.e., keep action within the limits or boundaries established by God. But once we have discarded the notion that it is right to respect the limits upon action implied by God's will, what becomes of the principle that confines the exercise of government power within limits that secure the God-ordained rights of individuals? What becomes of the people's obligation before God to act in order to prevent the destruction of those rights? What becomes of the discipline and courage connected with their sense of that obligation? Where God-ordained right is not respected, can God-given rights be maintained?
Though articulated in the context of a discussion of so-called 'gay marriage', Obama's position involves rejecting the premise of God-given and unalienable rights that is the foundation of constitutional government. It reveals the true face hidden beneath the masks he fashions to serve his ambition. It is a face distorted by the lust for raw, unbridled power. It is the face characteristic of those who dream of a world in which triumphant power has once and for all slipped the leash of conscience, a leash made effective by the people's willingness to act from motives that respect and rely upon the sovereign power of God. Tragically for America, the world they dream of will be one in which there is no freedom left except the freedom to be enslaved, by our undisciplined fears and passions, to the tyrants who most successfully manipulate them.
WND reports that "Glenn Beck fans are fighting back... "against an Obama faction effort to destroy the advertiser base for Beck's Fox News commentary program. "Now a husband and wife team of Beck fans has launched a website-DefendGlenn.com- that lists the contact information for advertisers for Beck's and other Fox News programs…" Though the Obama faction effort purports to be a reaction to Beck's remark that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," I suspect that their real motivation has more to do with the role he has played as a focal point for opposition to the Obama faction's drive to subject the United States to a totalitarian national socialist regime. People who oppose their intention should do more than applaud the defenders of Beck's freedom of speech; they should pitch in and help them out.
That said, I find myself unable to agree with Beck's statement about Obama's anti-white attitudes. Casting Obama as some kind of anti-white racist re-enforces the false notion that he speaks from or in any way represents the aggrieved heart of black Americans, the heart that tragically leads some black people (like Henry Gates and other members of the leftist black elite) to wallow incessantly in the world of hurt connected with what they feel is the persistent reality of white racism in America. All too often, however, the wallowing has an ironic "the lady doth protest too much" (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2) quality about it: Blacks who enjoy all the benefits and prestige American society can offer, using exaggerated gestures of condemnation of white racism to affirm their continued identification with the plight of other, less favored blacks. Is their show of angry resentment for the benefit of those less favored, or does it mainly serve to exploit (for "professional" purposes?) the embarrassed guilt that still influences the actions of so many other Americans who wish conscientiously to deal with the nation's heritage of racial injustice, fear and mistrust?
Barack Obama surely epitomizes this ironic exploitation of racial embarrassment. It was, and continues to be, a ruthlessly deployed weapon in his arsenal for political warfare. Consider for example elements of the Obama faction who now absurdly claim that people who notice and declare Obama's commitment to totalitarian national socialism are doing so because he's black. Actually, Obama's commitment to totalitarian socialism is more likely related to the emotional role and influence of anti-American leftists (e.g., his mother, Frank Davis, Bill Ayers) in his life and upbringing than to the facts of his racial biology.
After his father abandoned him, these communist/leftist figures provided emotional compensation for that abandonment. Did they redirect the pain and resentment it occasioned away from his father? Did their ideological fervor refocus it instead against the supposedly unjust American economic and political system? The hatred most characteristic of those who influenced Obama's emotional core is not hatred of whites or of white culture- it's hatred of the United States and of all that it stood for while leading the fight against expansive international communism.
Nothing about Barack Obama authentically represents or invokes the heritage of black Americans. Throughout his career he has championed the so-called right to abortion. From its inception with people like Margaret Sanger, to its genocidal implications for black Americans today, the promotion of a so called right to murder children in the womb has been allied with forces aiming to eliminate "inferior" races from the catalogue of human existence. (Given the anti-black implications of his fanatical commitment to the abortion agenda, the question arises: Did Obama's emotional pain over his father's abandonment result in sub-rosa resentment against his black racial heritage?) Authentic Christian faith has also been characteristic of the black American identity, reflecting the Gospel of love and reverence for God's will. That is a far cry from the peculiar mélange of race hatred and covert Islamism that claimed Obama's allegiance as a member of the congregation that assembled to hear the hate speech that passed for sermonizing in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's services.
And despite the leftist cant characteristic of the manipulated media's preferred black figureheads, many black Americans reject totalitarian socialist schemes to establish government domination and repression. Like my father, they donned the uniform of America's armed forces and fought with courage, pride and good conscience against the communist/national socialist devaluation of unalienable rights, and its collectivist/elitist assault on respect for the intrinsic worth of each and every human life.
Given Obama's upbringing, the self-avowed leftist predilections of his university life, the socialist stances characteristic of his brief political career, and the national socialist policies he is trying to force on the American people today, I would suggest that his race has nothing to do with the deep animus that characterizes his policies and actions. The target of his ill will isn't just whites- its black Americans, Jews, Asians, South Asians, Africans, Hispanics and yes, Europeans, Aussies and Brits, indeed any human beings who hold fast to the idea of liberty and the principles of God ordained human rights and moral dignity from which it springs. Rather than surrendering to the racial division Obama seeks to exploit, Americans of all backgrounds should unite on the common ground of decent humanity offered by our American creed.
Posts
