Who is Obama?

BigBrotherby Steve Lancaster   1/26/14
The United States is in the middle of one of the forty year cycles of scrutiny of core values. This examination is often prompted by economic crisis, and the credit meltdown of 2008/09 was certainly that. Today in 2014 we are dealing with the implementation of a massive restructuring of 1/6 of the economy prompted by the healthcare laws. Cultures change, adapt and adjust to new challenges. If they do not, then they rot and die. The next five years will determine how or if American culture will change. “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.”(Rand)

Who is Barak Obama? Over the last eight years thousands of articles and thoughtful reporting has been done about him and yet none capture his true character. Some have speculated that he has no core beliefs, others that his core beliefs are foreign to basic American core beliefs, perhaps even communist or socialist. The political success of Obama is attributable to his ability to misdirect critique. We have seen this before but never in such a monstrous form. He is not interested in governing and playing the political game. His only interest in in ruling and “fundamentally changing the United States.” How is government by executive order different from tyranny? Obama is no less a tyrant than King George III, and congress is his lapdog parliament.

Obama is a mystic. He seeks not just political approval but to enhance his status as dear leader. He is the ultimate taker, a mystic who says, “You didn’t built that.” Thus, the fake Greek columns, the lack of interest in actually governing. He will rule not govern. The continued high unemployment, low employment participation ensures that his rhetoric has an ear with those “in need,” all 90 million. “A mystic relishes the spectacle of suffering, of poverty, subservience and terror; these give him a feeling of triumph, a proof of the defeat of rational reality. But no other reality exists.”. . . “Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement.” (Rand)

For what he is doing and in fact most desires is devastation. His is an ideology of death and destruction. Destruction of our liberty, our freedom, our way of life. And, in its place, he brings death in the name of love. The double think of 1984 has arrived and we are all Winston with the all-powerful state as Big Brother. He says that he respects all people equally, but that is only a ruse. He does not have any feelings for anyone other than himself and if he believes it necessary he will murder millions in the name of the state. How many of the people who joined with him initially have been thrown under the bus? He may not be the Christian conception of anti-Christ, but he is the closest this country has come since Wilson.

Obama would praise any effort in the name of nonprofit for the people and condemn the economic system that makes that effort possible. It is because of this ideology that he cozies up to Wall Street, and ensures equity markets a portion of the nearly 1 trillion dollars yearly in QE from the Federal Reserve bond program. He knows only too well that financial support will come regardless of what he says about the 1%. Obama is the logical fulfillment of the leviathan state begun at the end of the civil war. Is revolution possible? In a world where carpenters are resurrected anything is possible, but the rollback of this immense all-powerful state will not happen in conditions of status quo.

As Americans, we do not want to judge a leader to be deeply flawed, or even evil. We have allowed the fox into the henhouse, but are surprised when he kills the chickens. Then to add insult to injury he says that it was we who left the door open and he just happened in. No, we have responsibility for electing this man to office. You may not have voted for him, I certainly did not, but have you said NO often enough and loud enough. It is time to say no, and say it to everything he represents otherwise you will no longer be free in any real sense, but a slave to the state.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.

“Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. • (2250 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Who is Obama?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    There’s a reason I refer to Big Brother Barry as the Fascist Messiah. That seems to reflect his goal: to do to America what Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela. Whether he actually wishes to destroy the country, he certainly doesn’t much care what happens to its people (whom he seems to resent), and he certainly has a nihilistic fondness for abortion. On the other hand, when one looks at how much he affects to be a bystander in his own administration, perhaps he’s just Wesley Mouch writ large (and black).

  2. steve lancaster says:

    Tim,
    Would that he was only a Mouch for he was mostly ineffective.

    Obama is a danger to our freedoms because he knows full well what he is doing and for the last five years has been remarkably effective in accomplishing the progressive agenda. Even if the mid-terms are strongly republican; there are still many in the GOP who believe you must go along to get along and will frustrate those who refuse to go along with the standard DC, (C)harlie, (F)oxtrot. We have real work to do, getting progressives and social democrats out of power, and dismantling the leviathan state.

    • griffonn says:

      I am so sick of the ‘go along to get along’ thing.

      We are at a point where (D) policies are shown to be utterly bankrupt. A combination of faith and good policy would knock the whole thing over like a house of cards, and yet right now is the moment when conservatives appear to have no faith in their own principles, and thus have no good policy that they’re proud to stand with.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        and yet right now is the moment when conservatives appear to have no faith in their own principles, and thus have no good policy that they’re proud to stand with.

        Ditto. And a discussion on that topic would surely bring revealing and certainly shocking answers as to why this is so.

        • griffonn says:

          I’m almost afraid to ask “why this is so”.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’m almost afraid to ask “why this is so”.

            Sorry to be so cryptic, Griffonn. But I didn’t articulate the “why’s” because I wasn’t in the mood for cynicism (perhaps realism).

            And I still don’t feel good about going down the laundry list of reasons why conservatives are either cowards or ideologically baffled. But let’s take a partial look at that list:

            + The conservative commentariat (those who should be consolidating and driving opinions in a useful and restorative direction) are either geared toward selling books, sucking up the the establishment GOP, or getting face time on TV. They are not for “standing athwart.”

            + The major ethical system that underpins America (Christianity) has sold its soul to “Progressivism.” If there is a role for Jesus and a personal morality that involves self-denial, it’s not generally in the churches.

            + Those who self identify as “conservative” are often single-issue “conservatives” or what I call “ornery” conservatives. Some are anti-abortion “conservatives” but otherwise are oblivious to the issues of the day. Others are the “ornery” type of conservative who may be gung-ho regarding the military, for instance, but it’s still “hands off my Social Security.”

            + The government schools, the mainstream media, and the vulgar/idiot entertainment culture at large are not producing an American who is thoughtful enough to deal with the issues of the day…and that includes many conservatives. (I still cringe over Jonah Goldberg’s praise for “Breaking Bad” as a supposedly good conservative influence.)

            + The corruptive influence of entitlements typically leaves “conservatives” to be those one-issue or “ornery” conservative that I talked about, but in the overall they do not oppose the growing state. They do not support freedom, in practice, but become apologists for statism. To be a conservative requires seeing the fishbowl, not just swimming mindlessly in it and bitching at the color of the sand at the bottom.

            + Lip service is given to freedom, free speech, and many traditional things by “conservatives.” But when it comes to their personal and professional lives, they tend to be cowards who go with the flow. “Conservative” can simply be an affectation because one has heard that “liberal” is a really awful thing.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Leftist control of the schools and media is no accident. This was the goal of the Fabian Society in Britain (George Bernard Shaw was a member), and was also advocated by an Italian socialist named Gramsci. Infiltrating all the communications carries the implication of excluding dissenting viewpoints, which has been easily observable in many areas.

              Incidentally, the Green Room on HotAir today has a lengthy commentary by a priest pointing out that Christianity is incompatible with both communism and socialism despite the claims of “social gospel” types.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Timothy, I can’t remember where I read it, but I read a history once of the French Revolution and their “New Man” affinity for creating the public school system. It was a desire fueled in large part by a zealous hatred of the Church, particularly the Jesuits who were one of the primary means of gaining what was then a classical education.

                Condorcet was their equivalent of Dewey or Wilson (keeping in mind Wilson’s famous quote of “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.”)

                Wouldn’t it be nice if these “Progressives” and statists, instead of trying to create a new world, would fix themselves?

                As Dennis Prager notes, the job of the typical university of today is to create Leftists. They are Leftist seminaries.

                Here at StubbornThings, we mediate on what it means to live outside this goofy cult of faux-nice. I think it’s unlikely we can ever change it. But we can at least laugh at it.

              • griffonn says:

                Here is a book to read if you’re interested in the origins of the planned assault on Christianity (Brad’s reference to the French revolution made me think of it):

                The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800
                David A. Bell
                http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Nation-France-Nationalism/dp/0674012372/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

  3. Far more terrifying to me is how Obama got elected, with no accomplishments and no vetting, and then after a horrendous first term is re-elected.
    If the American people are this stupid, or are this easily manipulated by the Main Stream Media, what can we expect going forward.
    We were all warned, and we decided to sign up for our own decline anyway. I was depressed for two weeks after the election of 2012, because I knew we were headed for another four years of decline and depression, and as the world around us gets increasingly dangerous and unstable, I honestly fear for the future with this amateur in the highest office of the land.

  4. Pingback: Who is Obama? | StubbornThings.org | Serve Him in the Waiting

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Dennis Prager has a column (available today on TownHall) looking at what liberals and conservatives consider evil, which was inspired by the UN’s decision to denounce the Washington Redskins’ name as an attack on human rights even as they ignore the vast atrocities of Iran, China, and North Korea as well as jihadist atrocities. He noted that conservatives are concerned with large evils (such as communism and jihadism), but liberals are concerned with trivial evils — quite often with opposing those who fight the larger evils. Obama, of course, fits in well with this group despite his fondness for drone strikes.

    • Steve lancaster says:

      Tim,
      The only reply for a free reasoning person is NO!
      You can only keep your self-respect or regain it by telling the mystics, progressives and dictators no.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m certainly not fond of Obama. But I’m interested in the motivation for absconding with the word “mystic.” Is this of Ayn Rand’s derivation? In my Dictionary app on my iMac it defines mystic as:

        a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

        There’s nothing wrong with being a mystic, per se. I dislike seeing perfectly good words discarded or twisted, even in the cause of refuting and exposing the Left. I understand that Rand was anti-religious. And if this usage derives from her (as I think it probably does), it’s an odd thing indeed for a supposedly “rational” person to engage in the re-defining of words in order to slander.

        • steve lancaster says:

          Brad,
          This is actually a topic for a much longer answer, however, in short. Yes, it is the mystic as Rand explains it in A S and it is not. i.e. Jesus was a mystic who had no call to a mass movement, Paul was a mystic who sought to spread the Way and created a mass movement. Mystic leaders have been with us throughout history some are religious, Jesus and Buddha some are not, Mao and Mohammad.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    Just out of curiosity, is anyone actually watching Slick Barry repeat all his other speeches tonight? My own reaction, like that of Radar O’Reilly’s wife in MASH Goes to Moscow, is that listening to an hour of worthless bloviation is literally sickening. (Probably most people don’t know that the MASH books are politically conservative. “Democrats bay at the moon and are so lazy they have to hire somebody to pick up their relief checks.”}

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Life is too short to spend time while someone lies to you on TV. Obama is a pathological liar.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Tim – there’s not a chance I would have watched Slick Barry tonight – we all know what he’s going to say: nothing is his fault. Republicans are obstructing his brilliant program to socialize America, we need more government-enforced income equality, etc.

      Our time would be better spent figuring out how we’re going to stop the Republican Establishment from (1) granting amnesty to illegal aliens, and (2) nominating someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie in 2016.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        If I had been stuck in the House chamber and forced to endure it, I think the best way would have been either to bring a book to read, or to bring a pillow and blanket and take a nap. And, hopefully, the TV cameras would have caught that.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I had more important things to do like watching re-runs of “Bewitched” and “Gilligan’s Island”.

      • LibertyMark says:

        A test, then, Mr. Zu. What was Little Buddy’s first name?

        (From SOTU to Gilligan, from the ridiculous to the sublime…)

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It’s been a while, but I think “Little Buddy” is how the skipper (Jonas Grumby, I believe) referred to Gilligan.

          • LibertyMark says:

            (I apologize for my apropos-of-nothing question here. But in for a penny, in for a pound…)

            Little Buddy’s full name was Willy Gilligan. I just learnt this, so many decades later.

            Now, just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip …

  7. griffonn says:

    I posted this on the wrong thread.

    Bad thing, having zillions of tabs open at once. 🙁

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    Responding to Brad’s post about the French Revolution and education, I will note that the Spanish Republic (dominated by liberals and socialists, which in 1930s Spain were not the same thing) put in a requirement for public education (and a ban on Catholic education) in their constitution. Hostility to Catholic education was a major motivation, but of course this inevitably meant that those Spaniards who were still genuinely (as opposed to nominally) Catholic had no choice but to oppose the republic outright.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the prime differences between getting an education at a Catholic school and in today’s public school is that the favored religion in the case of the Catholic school is not hidden. And as I understand the typical Catholic school (of old, perhaps) is that the indoctrination of Christianity was rather light while, conversely, the academic subjects (and the good discipline required for learning) were stressed…so much so that those of other faiths often allowed these religious schools to educate their children.

      “Progressives,” on the other hand, are neither upfront about their religious indoctrination nor do they stress the academic subjects. Today’s public schools are a mess, coming and going.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I attended a Catholic school for 2 years in the early 1960s, when we lived in Greece. All students attended the catechism class, but only the Catholics were expected to participate. (But we did receive the pamphlet for the class.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *