The Coming Obama 'Theocracy'

Captain's Quarters ^ | Feb. 16, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

[jdm]

People mocked Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for their religious backgrounds often during the presidential campaigns, but at least they never claimed to be on a mission to save the souls of Americans through government action. Oh, people accused them of wanting to do so -- to impose Southern Baptist or Mormon theology on an America that wants relentless secularism, but in point of fact both men gave stirring speeches on how their faith informs them personally but not their governance.

One campaign really has explicitly claimed to be on such a mission, however. Michelle Obama gave a speech at UCLA earlier this month in which she told supporters that her husband was the only man who could fix American souls -- if we elect him President first. Here's the transcript:

In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another. We don't know our neighbors, we don't talk, we believe our pain is our own. We don't realize that the struggles and challenges of all of us are the same. We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as "them" and "they" as opposed to "us". We don't engage because we are still too cynical. ...

Americans are not in debt because they live frivolously but because someone got sick. Even with insurance, the deductibles and the premiums are so high that people are still putting medications and treatments on credit cards. And they can't get out from under. I could go on and on, but this is how we're living, people, in 2008.

And things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn't gotten better for regular folks. ....

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

It's hard to know where to start in with this speech. First, what evidence does Mrs. Obama have that the largest part of credit card debt goes to health care? Second, if she has seen the standard of living get progressively worse during her lifetime, she needs new glasses. The living standard of even those classified as poor now have per-person expenditures of the American middle-class of the early 1970s, according to the Census Bureau. Eighty percent of the poor live in air-conditioned housing, 43% of them own their own homes, and the average poor American has as much living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, and Athens. Only 3% don't own a color TV.

But it's the notion that only Barack Obama can save our souls that is the most offensive part of the speech, by far. Government doesn't exist to save souls; it exists to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. If I feel my soul needs saving, the very last place I'd look (in the US) for a savior would be Washington DC or Capitol Hill. I'll trust God and Jesus Christ with my soul, and I'm not going to mistake Barack Obama for either one.

This, though, is the religion of statism distilled to its essence. Only a government can rescue people from the consequences of their own decisions. Only government programs can provide for your every need, and only government can use your money wisely enough to ensure that your needs get covered. Individuals cannot possibly manage to help their neighbors through their churches or community organizations, let alone encourage people to do for themselves.

And all you need to enter the statist Utopia is to sell your soul. So that it can be fixed.

No, thank you.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Sounds like Oprah-speak to me. Many more Americans are in debt from buying junk they don't need than from "putting medications and treatments on credit cards" and you & I (and Mrs. Obama) know that! We don't want to wait and save for that big screen television, that mega barbeque grill, those expensive shoes, the stainless steel kitchen, etc. I do home loans as my main gig, and I see how people get into debt, and believe me, it's not usually medical bills!

But don't you get it? We're going into debt buying all of this stuff we don't need in order to medicate the agony of our broken souls!

[SE Mom]

A collection of Lewis essays called “God In The Dock” has an essay called “Is Progress Possible, Willing Slaves of the Welfare State” it’s excellent reading- (written in the early 1950’s)

For example- in this essay Lewis says:

“If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.”

[Cuchulain]

I’m with you!

[WVNan]

You do know who the man in the blue shirt is, don’t you? That is George Soros.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Only 3% don't own a color TV.

Ah, that's the Amish, they don't own electrical appliances period.

[callisto]

Before you jump to conclusions, please read the entirety of my post as I am interested in your opinion, whether you like mine or not. I just don't appreciate being your whipping boy when I make statements with which you disagree.

You set the tone for our "conversation". Just because you didn't like my comment that Obama was the worst of two evils, you countered that I made the stupidest post of the day and/or week. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I also have the right to my opinion. By voicing an opinion that you disagree with, you immediately countered by throwing insults. Remember this?

Congratulations on the what I’m sure will be the stupidest post of the day (and possibly the week). Perhaps you were living under a rock for the 8 years that the 2 most evil, sociopathic people in the history of American politics ran the White House? What has Obama done that could be called evil when compared to the the daily works of the Satanic two-some?

This used to be a forum where discourse could be civil, but if you have been around as long as you say you have, you will remember those days. And as for the troll question (please note the question mark at the end - no period or exclamation mark), I inquired because you immediately flamed me because you didn't like my comment. Of course, with your extended history here, I'm sure you are aware of the abundance of shills and trolls who have registered on the forum in recent years.

It is easy to forget when posting online that readers of the post can not or do not pick up on the tone or intention of the poster. When I initially made my post about his evilness you must have interpreted my thoughts on Obama as being an attack on you, because I can think of no other logic for your response. It was NOT meant as an attack on you, only a comment on him.

I guess when you don’t have a sensible response you look for someones sign on date.

If you think it wasn't a sensible response to provide you a direct link to one of the largest files on Obama then you either did not read my post or you do not care to know anything adverse against Obama.

By the way, you have yet to post anything informative on this thread but are so ready to flame someone else who disagrees with your opinion of Obama. IMO, he IS the worst of two evils. That is MY opinion and I will stand by it. If you fail to agree that I am entitled to my own opinion then you do not belong on this forum IMO. For supporting documentation on Obama, please read the thread and the contents at the link provided.

Obama may be a marxist, socialist, etc., so is Hellary. There is not an ounce of difference between them in policy.

Now with your first statement we have common ground, but I disagree that there is no difference between the two. Due to 8 years of the first Clinton, we know how horrendous a Hillary presidency could be. Part of the danger with Obama is his newness and lack of history with which to combat his candidacy during the general. His style and oratory skills lend much to the hype and religious ferver surrounding his cult of followers. Conservatives do remember Hillary and her ambitions and, IMO, will fight tooth and nail to prevent her ascendency to the Office. But Obama will be a harder candidate to defeat. I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the best approach to defeat Obama and how best to proceed.

[attiladhun2]

I heard a Dick Morris interview on Mike Gallagher's show the other nite say that unlike Her Thighness, Obama is not an ideologue. As usual, he is dead wrong. Obama appears to me the most ideologically leftwinger we have ever seen as a viable candidate, at least in my lifetime. His positions cannot even be said to be Marxist lite. Obama is as hard left as they come, and cultivating a cult of personality as he is doing, ala Hugo Chavez, is downright alarming. If one would crawl over broken glass to vote against Jezebel, it seems to me one would crawl over razor blades to vote against this tax-and-spend crypto-Muslim false messiah.

[attiladhun2]

I am amazed by the Obaminator’s constant reference to “change”, when all he really expouses is the same failed Marxist bullcr@p we’ve all heard for the last umpteen years.

[attiladhun2]

what his candidacy is showing us about our country and where it really is- and where it could go...

IOW, let the Stalinist show trials begin, and let the "re-education" camps be filled with those declared guilty of the "anti-social" sins of not wanting their property confiscated, their liberties robbed, or their heritage trampled upon by drolling lunatics.

[attiladhun2]

what his candidacy is showing us about our country and where it really is- and where it could go...

IOW, let the Stalinist show trials begin, and let the "re-education" camps be filled with those declared guilty of the "anti-social" sins of not wanting their property confiscated, their liberties robbed, or their heritage trampled upon by drooling lunatics.

[callisto]

Super Tuesday I was FRinking every time he said, “change” on the TV. That was not my best idea to date...LOL!

I definitely agree with your assessment on the type of change he is promoting, and he is using the correct text to define it. According to statements his wife is making (see further up the thread) that “change” will not be good for our nation. Her statements are very scary!

[Hacklehead]

“By voicing an opinion that you disagree with, you immediately countered by throwing insults. Remember this?”

I remember that I posted a comment that YOU disagreed with and you responded by telling me “Open your eyes” as though only an uniformed person could have that opinion. That insult is what set the tone for my response.

It also doesn’t help that I feel VERY strongly about keeping the KKKlintons out of the White House. Just when it looks like we have a chance of doing that, people are making the classic mistake of assuming the KKKlintons are beaten and are attacking Obama. Frankly, Obama is our best chance of beating the KKKlintons. I know that if they are allowed to get one step from the White House they will find a way to win. They always do. IMO a Hellary presidency would be 10x worse than an Obama presidency.

[Jacquerie]

Too many at this forum rationalize their disappointment at not having a conservative nominee by equating the Obamabeast with McCain. For them, it is mental comfort food.

[BenLurkin]

One soul each?

[ladyinred]

Mrs. Anti Christ? :0

[callisto]

We disagree on who has the potential to be the worst, but we definitely agree on keeping Hillary out of the Office. Hopefully, we both agree that neither should hold the office! Trust that I have not written off the potential that she may become the Dem nominee and that it WILL be an all out fight for Conservatives should that occur. But I hope you, and others, will concede that it is not impossible for Hillary to lose Obama, which could portend a more difficult opponent to defeat.

I think we are both on the same side...only looking at things from slightly different perspectives. Please accept my apologies, as I was curt in my initial post and meant to imply that you should read further up the thread and re-analyze the posts regarding his "change". I should know better than to post in haste! (even when household catastrophes occur...)

[madison10]

...With Obama- it is something larger and more dreadful than we can imagine. What’s unsettling about this man- is what his candidacy is showing us about our country and where it really is- and where it could go...

AMEN!

[Hacklehead]

No hard feelings. I think tempers are short because no matter who wins the next election, we get sc***ed. Its just a matter of degree. Its going to be a rough 8 years.

[callisto]

8? He[[ I;m hoping we have such a strong Conservative turnout in 2012 we take back the White House and both wings of Congress. IMO it’s time Conservatives turn grassroots again and begin rebuilding from the local and state level up, and send those in Congress who think it’s a profession packing their bags.

And I agree with your analysis on short tempers. My apologies, once again!

[ladyinred]

Well, your post is going to give me nightmares. I started out just not liking this guy because of his hidden Islamic past, but now I am really starting to be concerned!