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

“Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man _ our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.”

Notice how Obama slips in “ownership” (acquisitiveness) in the list of vices. What Marxist wouldn’t include ownership as a key vice with which men struggle. Notice also how Obama impugns those with wealth and power but doesn’t manage to see sin in those who are impoverished and who have no power. This is the classical liberation theology that Obama learned under Jeremiah Wright. The rich are vicious just because they are rich. The poor are saintly just because they are poor. Obama, following liberation theology tenets, suggests that he is the one who must make the world “fair,” by redressing this problem.

Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of self-interest, and crass materialism. Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of prejudice and have a fear of those who are unfamiliar.

“We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.”

Lets be honest and note that the soldier and lawyer who both love their country with equal passion love it so much that they believe it would be a far better country if those who disagree with them were shipped off to some other country. This is true because the country they each love is a country where the convictions of the other are crushed and eliminated.

“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”

Here Obama is building up to a technique that I’ve seen used countless times in the Church. Some issue comes up in a denomination where people have strong convictions on each side of the issue. What happens to jam the controversial issue through over the protests of those who are against the issue at hand is the recital of how noble the people are who want to see the controversial issue passed. There is a sense here that just because people have good intentions therefore whatever controversial issue they support must be embraced by the whole. From there what is lost sight of is the merits of demerits of the issue and what is turned to instead is the quality of the people who hold to controversial issues.

Obama seeks to fudge the lines of right and wrong by insisting that all the people who hold opposite opinions are good people. The implication here is that since the people who hold to varying convictions all have good intentions therefore all the varying convictions must be equally good.

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.