Obama’s Notre Dame Speech — Deconstructing Obama — Part I

The man who is sitting as President of these united States — B. Hussein Obama — spoke yesterday at Notre Dame. In a masterful speech that was a perfect piece of political propaganda Obama exhibited how one subtly undermines the opposition while at the same time practicing manipulation of public opinion.

B. Hussein Obama’s words are in blockquote and my interaction follows.

“You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that you are now called to fulfill.”

Note here how Obama’s speech writers stroke the sense of self importance of the graduates. Obama fills his audience with a sense of mission that will only be satisfied by their remaking the world in ways that he is going to suggest.

It is ironic though in a sense Obama is right because we have come to a inflection point in history, and that inflection point is whether or not Americans will find the moral and political will to reject the totalitarianism that Obama represents. Obama is correct that the size and scope of the challenges before us are monumental. The largest of those challenges is to see through the fog screen of political propaganda that is pouring out of the White House sponsored major media.

On this quote, we would note again of Obama’s stated intent to “remake the world.” We should take very seriously this oft repeated sentiment of Obama. Obama is a clear Marxist who has already taken steps to introduce a hardening of the incipient socialism and nanny tyranny that we have lived with for decades now.

“This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.”

We should understand that the cry of “fairness” is the standard cry of collectivists of all stripes. This is just the same old complaint that the bourgeoisie is unfair to the proletariat. Obama is just your garden variety Marxist.

Obama will remake the world by legislating “fairness,” which means a redistribution ethic. We have already seen Obama’s pursuit of “fairness” in sticking it to the investor class of the auto industry as he forced them to take pennies on the dollars of their investment while giving the UAW a huge share of ownership. Acting explicitly against the constitution Obama pursued his sense of “fairness.”

Secondly, there is a subtle undertone here that it was the private market that is to be faulted for the recent economic problems when in point of fact the problems of greed of the Government and the short term thinking of the government in their fiscal policies have been continually rewarded despite the governments lack of fairness, (as seen in their continued pursuit of affirmative action policies and quotas, as well as how they tax the producers in favor of the parasites of society) lack of diligence (unless you count the diligence of screwing the American public) and complete ignorance on what it means to do a honest days work. Obama keeps pointing to the private sector and to American businessmen as being greedy but continues to conveniently forget the rapacious greed of the state.

“We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, of culture and of belief.”

Notice how our Marxist President invokes “God” in order to support his socialist agenda which is shielded with the evil mask of “global warming.” The planet is no more in danger of being destroyed by climate change then I’m in danger of being destroyed by biting snardarks.

Second, the Obama administration has already told us who it thinks are the ones who seek to do us harm and those people are not Islamic Jihadists but rather they are Ron Paul voters, Second Amendment believers, People who believe that the Constitution should be taken seriously, and people who believe in States rights. These are the folks that Obama believes intend to do this nation harm.

“In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

This is Utopian nonsense. Humans have been existence for thousands of years and they have never lived together as one human family and the only way to find a way to live together as one human family is by the Gospel of Jesus Christ going forth triumphantly to conquer by Word and Spirit the members of the human family who refuse to bow the knee to King Jesus.

“It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it’s global recession or violent extremism, the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.”

Only Christianity alone can meet the challenges that Obama mentions. Christ alone is the answer to bring peace to the nations. Only Christian’s disciplining the nations can reduce the threats that the Marxist President fears.

Lasch On How Society Reproduces

“Every society reproduces its culture — its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience — in the individual, in the form of personality. As Durkheim said, personality is the individual socialized. The process of socialization, carried out by the family and secondarily by the school and other agencies of character formation, modifies human nature to conform to the prevailing social norms.”

Christopher Lasch
The Culture Of Narcissism

Please understand the import of this quote from Lasch. Lasch is insisting that culture is the mold that an individual is poured into that produces personality. All of this works to bend human nature in the direction of societal norms. Now, certainly, we would add that this process works in reverse at the same time. A handful of individuals always escape and rise out of the societal mold in order to make major contributions to the shape which the societal mold will take.

All of this is why it is so important for the Church as well as individual Christians to speak to cultural issues. If the Church surrenders her input then the norms, underlying assumptions, and the culture’s mode of organizing experience will belong to the religion and theology that doesn’t surrender on this score.

Further, Lasch’s point is that people are individual manifestations of the culture that has been impressed upon them. Pagans understand this in a way Christians do not. This is why pagans want the children for their schools. This is why the pagans want to use legislation for social engineering. This is why the pagans want to control the media levers. The pagan understands that when a culture and its institutions are pagan then the individuals will be pagan as well. Now, the fact that this isn’t universally true is the providence of God calling His people out from the cultural mold, but how faithful to their rescue and their rescuer are those who have been rescued from that pagan mold who insist that it is wicked and wrong of the Church to be culturally engaged?

If personality is the individual socialized then the Church should move heaven and hell to speak into that socializing process.

US Congressman Responds To A Constituent Letter Regard Hate Crimes Bill

Dear ****:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1913, a bill that would provide assistance to states and localities to better prosecute hate crimes. I appreciate hearing from you.

On April 2, 2009, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) reintroduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. On April 29, the House of Representatives debated this legislation, passing it with a bipartisan majority of 249-175. H.R. 1913 is also supported by more than 300 organizations, including law enforcement groups, religious groups, civil rights groups, disability groups, and numerous other associations. It is currently awaiting consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I supported the bill because I believe crimes based on the ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, or disability of the victim must be met with an adequate response from law enforcement agencies. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and would continue to do so under this legislation. The special attention these crimes require can stretch local law enforcement resources beyond their capacity. Oftentimes, states and local police departments do not have the expertise, manpower, or financial resources to investigate and prosecute such crimes. This bill would enable the federal government to provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies to equip local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. This legislation would also authorize the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Additionally, H.R. 1913 would extend existing protections to more Americans. The current federal hate crimes statute provides for federal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes in the cases of a violent crime committed against persons because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. This bill would close the current gaps in federal law to also provide federal assistance in the cases of a hate crime committed against persons because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Some critics have a misplaced fear that any federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes will lead to the prosecution of thoughts and beliefs. This is untrue. H.R. 1913 only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence and does not impinge freedom of speech or religious expression in any way. Others contend that with passage of this bill, individuals may be arrested for speech and spoken words. This, too, is false. H.R. 1913 does not prohibit thought, speech or expression protected by the First Amendment.

Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John Dingell
Member of Congress

1.) Note the second paragraph. The implicit idea that is communicated is that Dingell’s vote is justified because the world is filled with so many other idiots who likewise support this legislation. No idiot ever need fear being exposed as an idiot as long as he is standing in a crowd of idiots.

2.) Note paragraph 3 sentence 1. Now let me get this straight… we are contemplating passing a law so that if a parent commits a crime against someone else because that someone else is a pederast and just fondled their 8 year old son or daughter that parent is going to be prosecuted more heavily? We are creating as scenario where the parent could be charged with a greater crime then the lech.

Secondly, touching paragraph 3 sentence 1 what we are doing is establishing that some crime victims are more important then other crime victims. Also, you can take it to the bank that the only criteria for pursuing a hate crimes prosecution will be the very fact that the victim of the crime is a pervert. Remember, in order for a prosecution to be successful on this matter it is going to have to be proven what was going through the criminals mind the very moment he committed the crime. Since, that is virtually impossible what will result is both an increased politicization of the court process as prosecuting attorneys try to make a name for themselves by convicting people for hate crimes, and the reality that a hate crime, since intent can’t be established, will be pursued simply because there was a crime against somebody in a protected class.

3.) The rest of paragraph 3 establishes that we are incrementally moving towards nationalizing and federalizing our local police. Keep in mind that dollars are following this legislation. What always happens at that point is that more hate crime cases have to be discovered in order to justify the flow of money from the Feds to the state and local police enforcement. Money flows to the local police and the local police have to show that the money was well spent. Remember the principle … what you subsidize (in this case resources for hate crimes prosecution) you always get more of (in this case increased hate crimes in order to use the subsidized resources).

4.) Paragraph 4 establishes that we are giving extra protection to people who love to copulate with dead people, people who love to copulate with cows, adults who love little boys, and other assorted perverts, queers, and general social deviants.

5.) Paragraph 5 is merely an opinion. Dingell has no idea the way that courts will interpret this legislation. One can easily foresee this legislation against hate crimes being used to rule against hate speech as clever prosecutors will connect the dots between the hate speech that putatively provokes hate crimes. At such a point a “hate crime” will include speaking that allegedly leads to violent acts.

Dingell is an idiot and as such he is the perfect man to represent Americans.

Racial Humor

So the latest in Washington DC was the White House Correspondent dinner where black female comedian Wanda Sykes launched into a racist diatribe against white people.

Let’s reverse Wanda Sykes shtick and pretend instead that it was white female Ann Coulter who was delivering the comic zingers last night.

This is what Ann said:

“Sharpie and Jackie insisted that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty of raping that tramp. They’re like, “I don’t care about justice when it comes to those rich Lacrosse players. I don’t care if they lose their future, their name or their reputation.” Sharpie and Jackie just want to stick it to the man. They just want people to fail. To me, that’s racism.

“They’re not doing anything different that what Osama bin Laden is doing.
They’re both trying to destroy the country. You know you might want to look into this, Mr. President, because I think Sharpie and Jackie might be taking all the money they get from shaking down the man and are financing terrorism. The only difference between Sharpie and Jackie and those terrorists is that Sharpie and Jackie are to lazy to make the effort to hijack a airplane.”

Now if Ann Coulter had done this there would have been hell to pay for such a veiled racist attack against black liberals but let a black female comedian accuse a white conservative of treason and let her suggest it would be a good thing if the conservative died and suddenly our Black President is yucking it up. Wanda Sykes didn’t aim her barbs at Michael Steele. She didn’t aim any barbs at Walter Williams.

I watched the ‘show’ on c-span, last night. I decided that the POTUS tells jokes with a vulgar twist–a new LOW for Presidential discourse; even if it be humor: viz. Rham Emanuel can’t juxtapose “Mother” and “Day” (Yah, I get it; Rahm says “motherf*cker” all the time); and Tim Geithner is a “fire hydrant” (The ‘Dogs of Finance and Politics” pee on his leg–cute!). Obama is gutter trash.

What DO you call these people? If they were white and made such jokes, they would be termed, “Whitetrash”, where I live.

Hate Speech Laws, Interpretation & Naive Critics

Recently, I have seen several prominent Reformed and Evangelical Christians chastising the Christian community for hyperventilating regarding the recent hate crimes legislation that is moving through Congress. The constant verbal flogging used by these prominent men is that much is being made about nothing since the express language of the hate crimes legislation increases penalty for hate crimes while saying nothing about hate speech. Their point seems to be that this proposed hate crimes legislation will only effect people committing crimes and since Christians don’t commit crimes the legislation is nothing to be concerned about.

These people criticizing those of us who are raising voices of warning about this proposed hate crimes legislation are not people who are aware that how legislation gets written, interpreted and implemented are very different realities. To be honest the prominent Reformed and Evangelical critics are political naifs who do not realize how the game is played in Washington.

In Washington all laws are expansively interpreted so that the qualifications that were originally part of legislation is often ignored by those executing and prosecuting the law. In the Government class I am currently teaching we are seeing the historical use of this maximal judicial hermeneutic.

Paul Craig Roberts makes this same point in a recent article he wrote,

“The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was directed at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce; yet it soon was applied in divorce cases.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas and defines racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were imposed by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and intent was replaced by statistical disparity.

The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and conveys no powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations. Yet, for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state permit to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who claimed jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled that the clean dirt used to level the building lot constituted discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U.S. No navigable waters were involved, and according to the state of Florida, no wetlands.”

Woods and Gutzman’s book “Who Killed The Constitution,” likewise delivers example after example of how legislation is interpreted in a maximal fashion quite contrary to it’s supposed limitations.

Prominent Reformed and Evangelical Christians ought to do their research on how legislation has been used to pursue ends that were putatively not part of the original legislation before they criticize people who have a historical sense of how this kind of thing works.

Mark my words …. the hate crimes legislation that is currently moving through Washington, if passed, will eventually be used to stifle speech against the perverts that the legislation seeks to protect.