Obama-Almighty?
"I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth,"
"These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation in the world right now we are neglecting to live up to that call."
"There are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness."
The quotes above are from President Obama’s “teleconference” to hundreds of religious leaders on Thursday, August 20. Looking to bolster support for his failing attempts to seize government control over the nation’s health care plan, Obama attempted to convert his political stance into a moral imperative suggesting that not supporting his policy is immoral and that criticizing it is sinful. How clear can the insinuations be when he speaks of an “ethical and moral obligation” and then to suggest that somehow those who don’t interpret the thousand plus page measure are “bearing false witness” is staking out new territory in this debate that is not just inflammatory, it’s pure demagoguery of the worst kind.
On what moral authority does Barack Obama stand? He joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s infamous Trinity United Church of Christ in his attempt to establish his roots as an African American given his background, a world from which he was totally divorced. In his ambitious scheme of things, joining this church would give him an aura of authenticity given his Kenyan father and white mother from Kansas, Barack Obama had no connection with the history of African Americans whose ancestors were rounded up like animals in their native land, sold as slaves, and treated as second class citizens long after slavery was abolished. Having no lineage to this history, the Marxist educated and influenced bi-racial ambition consumed opportunist found the Chicago church setting as the proper place to establish a legitimate identity. Make no mistake, however, as was so clearly revealed by Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric of hatred and racism best punctuated by his screaming, “God damn America” this church is a far cry from the Black church in the mold of Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church. The Jeremiah Wright brand of religion is called “Liberation Theology,” a radical doctrine originating in Latin America making the Marxist doctrine of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara more accessible to the traditionally Catholic population. In the context of urban Chicago, Liberation theology is a hybrid including some of the radical sentiments of 60’s style radicalism, a values system Obama influences like Richard Ayers were key leaders of spreading. What could be more perfect for a person nurtured by professed Marxists? Obama alluded to this influence in his Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. He 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.”
Obama’s earliest influence from Hawaii, of course, was the Black Marxist poet, Frank Marshall Davis, a writer who fanned the fires of racial conflict and class warfare.
Only through understanding what’s in Obama’s background can we understand where his appeal to religious leaders is coming from. It’s not from any kind of moral reflection or religious upbringing. Has anybody noticed Obama’s reluctance to establish a new church since after making excuses for Reverend Wright initially severing the relationship when the political heat got too hot leaving the President with no established church?
The obvious is clear. Barack Obama is weaving religious rhetoric into the debate in attempts to demonize his opponents and to provide his supporters a self-righteous sense of moral superiority to their opponents where in their minds it is no longer disagreement over a hotly contested political issue that many citizens do not embrace for plenty of carefully thought through reasons. Government controlled health care is a moral mandate and those who oppose it are immoral. Plain and simple, that’s the message Barack Obama wanted to cement in the minds of those religious figures who’d defend him.
What can be more perverse than a notion that comes from the furthest left of the secular humanist point of view being now cloaked in religious values?
Through out the nation, ordinary citizens from all backgrounds but significantly senior citizens have gone public with their concerns at town hall forums who’ve examined health care proposals and have serious concerns. How quickly Team Obama with agents like Nancy Pelosi have quickly struck to demonize them and attempt to render their arguments illegitimate accusing them as being rounded up by the Republican Party leadership, Insurance and drug companies, right-wing talk show hosts, and the Fox News network. While truth be told, many government run health care opponents might have gotten some of their information from Fox News or talk radio for their initial information, that’s largely because other news sources have so openly embraced and advocated the Obama plan in some cases acting as a virtual PR extension of the administration as witnessed by the cozy relationship between the White House and Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, parent company of NBC news and MSNBC. Further, many members of the media such as Lynn Douglas, administration media lead on health care “reform” populate positions in the administration.
While they accuse Republicans and conservatives of manufacturing opposition, interviews of opponents clearly reveal they are folks with little or no background in any political issues. They aren’t members of anything and many are registered as independents neither Democrat nor Republican. What is true, however, strong organizational support ensures that Obama supporters are present at these meetings often busing in activists from miles away with marching instructions that go beyond simply trying to voice support of the President’s plans. Supported by SEIU and ACORN factions, they are directed to openly confront and attempt to intimidate ordinary citizens with no experience of participating in the political process and having no established leadership to help coordinate their efforts.
With remarks of “swastika waving” opponents from Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank’s insulting comments telling an opponent he’d rather argue with a “dining room” table, the proponents of government health care with all the restrictions and takeaways it embraces, have decided not to attempt to counter arguments directed against them. They will not engage in any kind of comparative analysis designed to assert their program more effective. They cannot document how their program meets some of the most important originally stated goals such as reducing health care costs. Instead, they are resorting to almost every form of logical fallacy, mass distortions, false assertions, and character assassinations to further their conquest of basic economic and personal freedoms American citizens currently have preserving their health and working with their doctors. Perhaps Obama and his supporters have no other recourse as their policies simply do not stand up under scrutiny.
Nevertheless, as of yesterday, opponents to government takeover of health care are sinners. They’ve already been characterized as racists since the system they defend is argued to punish largely African-American and Hispanic populations since many of them currently do not have health insurance due to the nature of their employment or economic situation. Not getting notice, of course, is the notion that illegal aliens (undocumented workers – as the left defines them) should be covered by government health care. For these economic considerations, therefore, they argue the system is racist and thus those enjoying the benefits of the current system are taking advantage of ill-begotten gains as if they enjoy their quality health care on the backs of those who don’t have healthcare. What they don’t concede is the government regulations that define how private insurance operates have as much to do any other factor. One of the most common assertions the elite left makes of health care opponents is the accusation of racism. That somehow because the health care policy issue would represent a huge victory and demonstrate the leadership of a black president, such a prospect is totally unacceptable to people they are quick to brand as racist once again using dirty logic labeling critics with false insinuations to dismiss the substance of their arguments. We’ve heard often in the last couple weeks, Obama supporters claiming that “socialist” is the new code word used when Obama opponents clearly mean to say “nigger.” In the elitist mind, that’s what it’s all about. They refuse to take their critics at their word. They know what’s in their opponent’s hearts more than their opponents do. How dare they assert that our assertions about what we know as true implicit and explicit in Obama’s policies are grounded in racial prejudice. This issue was fought vigorously when championed by Hilary Clinton, a white woman, in 1993. Does anybody who questions the government seizure of health care feel they’d react any differently had John Edwards, John McCain, Hilary Clinton, or anyone else offered up such a disaster? If anything critics are perhaps a little more careful how they formulate their criticisms for fear of how they might be labeled.
Once again, this is the left’s typical strategy of attempting to take focus off the issue and put it on their perceived motives of their adversaries. If they can’t deal with the subject, change it.
They refuse to look at the health care difficulties issue by issue and try to work on solving such issues individually, but instead to throw out the entire system and replace it with the kind of system that is failing millions in Canada and Great Britain. Given the number of citizens, for instance, who are uninsured, certainly plenty of options are available to provide this population with adequate coverage which would probably be better than what the whole society has in store should Obama medicine be thrust upon America.
Adding insult to injury, on the same day Barack Obama attempted to stuff the issue with religious implications, he also accused the Republican party of having had a preconceived plan to block all health care proposals regardless of their content for simple political terms looking to attempt to recreate their victory in 1994 in the wake of Hilary care.
The whole health care debate took a very ugly and dangerous turn yesterday with Barack Obama’s attempt to invoke religious imperatives into the debate. When considering Obama’s attempt to put religion to work to support his health care scheme we must consider it against the backdrop of Barack Obama’s religious credentials and that he and the recent tradition of the Democratic party has systematically attempted to marginalize traditional religious values and through their judicial appointments attempted to force any kind of religious expression out of all public settings be it banning the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings or creating the kind of anti-religion zealotry that would punish student valedictorians who might speak of their faith in graduation addresses. How often have they taken sincere moral arguments and attempted to marginalize them as the ranting and raving of the most extreme factions of the Fundamentalist Religious Right?
American citizens who find government controlled health care unacceptable and who seek to preserve their freedom to work with their health care providers to chart the best health care options and guidance on life and death decisions must view yesterday’s actions as pouring fuel on the controversy in a very dangerous way. Responsible Americans who are exercising their fundamental rights to address their elected officials and express their concerns must be respected. Surely, if one were to interview government health care opponents on issues of their faith, most would be revealed to be very morally upstanding people who being portrayed as the President has cast them and to demand of them support as a moral requirement presents some of the most treacherous political strategy in recent American history revealing just how dangerous, hateful, corrupt, and vicious Barack Obama truly is.
No comments:
Post a Comment