Obama as a God, not the God

If Obama really believes in the separation of church and state, perhaps he should stop acting like he’s a god; just a thought for a guy who, apparently, would like to win another presidential term.

Americans occasionally will make sacrifices to false gods, like they did in November 2008 to the Obama of Greek columns and digital halos. But inevitably, the American public grows tired of the gods they make when the gods appear as nothing but mere mortals. And when that happens, look out: They’ll soon sacrifice their idol on an altar that the god himself builds.

The process of building that altar is continuing in Team Obama’s electoral strategy.

It seems so far the crux of the reelection strategy is to actively seek to offend the greatest number of people, including business leaders, religious leaders and the silent majority who really lead the country by working and living on Main Street.

One of the real, credible strengths of this country used to be that all the decisions made on Main Street, in sum total, counted for more than any decision made by the federal government.

One of the dangers of progressive leadership, including the leadership of a majority of Republicans, is that it has led to the erroneous belief by those in and out of government of the supremacy of government decisions over the power of the individual.

For too long now voters and politicians alike have worked under the assumption that what politicians think of us is far more important than what we think of them.

That’s why there has been a see-saw in election contests between Democrats and Republicans for the last dozen years. Both sides are quite adept at winning elections by allowing voters to vote against the other guy.

“In many troubled relationships, both sides deserve some of the blame,” wrote pollster Scott Rasmussen recently, who knows something about elections. “But the United States is a nation founded on the belief that governments gain their legitimacy only from the consent of the governed. In the relationship between the people and the Political Class, that means the voters are right, and the politicians need to change.”

It’s a message that the GOP needs to heed. Because, while Obama’s presidency may be considered a failure now, don’t expect the progressive radicalism that Obama has preached to wane just because he loses an election. It’s here to stay and the most likely result is that the GOP will adopt half-measures that meet the progressives more than half way.

We used to all labor under the assumption that U.S. Constitution was a document that constrained the power of federal government. But after a century of allowing the federal government to nibble at the edges of our sensibility regarding government power in the name of anything that would buy a citizen’s vote, the breadth of the government power grab- in the name of the constitution- after three years under Obama, is overawing.

Reacting to new rules which would see the Christian churches forced to pay for abortion services, Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago has this to say about the guttural assault on Christianity – and conscience- that is coming from the progressive left: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

It’s clear that under Obama, the U.S. government is seeking the power to regulate every aspect of person’s life, including when they’re born, when they die, what car they drive, what house they can buy, where they go to school, what they are taught in school and which of their religious beliefs will be tolerated by the government. Even God, Our-Father doesn’t claim as much authority in our lives.

So let’s just say that this isn’t just your garden-variety, Jimmy Carter-style, liberal incompetence from Obama. It’s that of course too. In fact, the saving grace of Obama’s administration for the rest of us is their incompetence.

If the administration’s radicalism were a tad more competent, a citizenry that’s given the government the liberty to curtail our own liberties might even allow the persecution of churches, as long as the right type of churches are persecuted.

“Nations and women are not forgiven” wrote Karl Marx, in one of the few things he got right about history, “the unguarded hour in which the first adventurer who came along could violate them.”

Obama's not the first adventurer nor the last in U.S. history. In fact, our mistake is in thinking Obama is the problem, rather than a consequence, or side effect of the corporate individual we have created known as Government.

Liberty today has been so curtailed by the Government, that it lives only on the razor’s edge.

We have seen over the last century, the concept of liberty has been so violated that in the hand of the Government it has the power to cut or to cure depending on who wields it.

And in the hands of a god and an adventurer, as the Government would become, it can only continue to be abused.

This piece came via a e-mail, quite a good take on the ONE.

Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!

As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.

Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Government & Society

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”) ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “nonthreatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever been issued from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Here the web site to confirm this article
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-washington-post-on-obamafinally/question-2601863/

Here is a part of the Barmen Declaration written largely by Karl Barth in Germany, 1934. The purpose was to define the beliefs of the German Church as opposed to the usurpation of the church's role by the Third Reich. I did not know much about the Barmen Declaration until I read Eric Metaxas' brilliant biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy

Section II, 8-22

"Fear God. Honor the emperor". (1 Peter 2:17) Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.

8.23

We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.

It is quite clear that the aim of the Left is to enable the state to "become the single and totalitarian order of human life." In blind allegiance to a variety of utopian myths, the useful idiots of the Left never seem to catch on to the fact that the order of human life belongs to God alone and is implemented, almost ironically, in the exercise of human free will. The way of the Left always has been and always will be followed with death and destruction. It is the manifestation of the spirit of antichrist who, as Paul put it, "opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." (2Thessalonians 2:4)

As we continually look for the "AntiChrist" we should not forget that the State, unchecked and without the kind of limitations placed on it by the framers of our Constitution, is the epitome of the spirit of antichrist. Don't get me wrong. Obama is not the Anti-Christ. Despite the claims of the sycophantic press, he is not smart enough. But he clearly buys into the Beast system. And as that system raises its ugly head once again, we must watch carefully, but rejoice as it is merely confirmation that Christ's return is (by God's definition) imminent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.