When I was a kid, we used to argue back and forth: “Yes you are.” “No, I’m not.” We’d go back and forth without ever resolving anything. But then, we were just kids being kids. Now that I’m an adult (presumably), the game seems more than just a little bit childish.
But, I’m confused. I need someone to explain something to me. When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency, he didn’t want anyone using his middle name (which is obviously Muslim). It was supposedly because he was trying to emphasize that he was a devout Christian. I get that part. At least, he had attended a Christian church for many years, albeit one with a radical pastor. No doubt, Jeremiah Wright’s controversial anti-American tirades had something to do with Michelle Obama saying that she wasn’t proud to be an American. I guess that I get that part too.
But then there was the recent White House statement which said that President Obama was still committed to the Christian faith. The President even went on The Larry King Show to combat the growing public perception that he is a Muslim. Now here’s where it’s starting to get fuzzy for me. Since when would a Christian bow to a Muslim (as in the King of Saudi Arabia)? And since when would a Christian support the building of a mosque at Ground Zero? To me, those actions seem completely at odds with how a devout Christian would act.
I mention this not because I care about the president’s faith. It’s okay for the president to be a Buddhist if he wants. He could even be an atheist for all I care. I would just like some clarity in what the man believes in and how it might therefore affect his judgment (like bowing to a foreign dignitary).
So here is where the picture goes completely out of focus.
For a man who is a devout Christian, he sure does quote a lot from what he refers to as the Holy Koran. Of course, the Koran is only considered holy by those that view it as such. Everyone else simply refers to it as the Koran.
That’s why I’m so confused. President Obama’s actions don’t seem to reflect what he has said about his faith. For me, leadership and credibility go hand in hand in The Oval Office and if you can’t trust your leader, that’s a serious problem. I guess that’s one reason why his poll numbers are so low.
I know some people won’t share my views and that’s fine by me. If you want to, you can even call me a wacko or a zealot, or, like the government is doing nowadays with people who disagree with their policies, a terrorist. Oh, by the way, did I understand it correctly that Barack Obama now admits that he was born in Kenya?
I’m confused again more than ever. I thought he’s from Hawaii. Yes, he is. No, he isn’t. Yes, he is….
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
– Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the eighteenth century, philosophers argued the pros and cons of political ideology. In 1762, Jean Jacques Rousseau penned his famous work, The Social Contract, in which he stated that people think that they are free but they are not. Then along came the American Revolution and the writings of some of our founding fathers which were contained in The Federalist papers. According to the founding fathers, man was finally free. Accordingly, The Declaration of Independence set out the proposition that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. In other words, the principles of liberty arise from man’s god-given rights. God was now at the center over the debate as to whether man was truly free or not.
Today, the attack on God takes many forms, including the threat to burn the Koran. The reason for such attacks is to deny man his lifeline to a higher authority, especially one that trumps the State. If God is taken out of the equation, then the state can step into the vacuum and moral authority would then emanate from the government instead.
But before that could occur, it would be necessary to undermine the traditional values of the founding fathers, who had brought us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and pursuit of God). Religious freedom, after all, is at the core of liberty since man can be a slave but still be free in the sense of his connection with God. Furthermore, if man’s rights come from God, and not the State, how can the State be effective in controlling the affairs of man?
The political solution to this dilemma was to control the country through its freely-elected representatives. This can be accomplished by taking the lead in terms of setting the social agenda of the country. Enter liberalism. But large political organizations require equally large public support. The public must believe that the movement, in this case liberalism, is for the general good of society. Ergo, liberalism’s support of all sort of social programs. In elections, of course, people tend to vote with their pocketbook and those receiving public dole (currently estimated at half of all families in this country) will likely vote for a continuance of such programs and elect the people who enacted them.
However, large political organizations are like pyramids. Only a handful of people at the top understand the true agenda. A good example of this is Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers, who actually believe that there actions are done with Allah’s blessing. Their leaders indoctrinate them with a belief system which is different than what they actually believe in themselves. I guess someone has to do the dirty work.
So what’s the real story?
Liberalism is in reality nothing more than creeping socialism (the current term in vogue is “nudging”). Socialism is, in reality, creeping communism and communism, which purports to be a workers’ movement, is a creeping form of control which allows an elite ruling class to actually dominate the workers.
Michael Savage, a conservative pundit, recently wrote a best-seller entitled “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions.” In his book, he refers to liberalism as a mental disease. However, liberalism is far from being a mental disorder. He’s right in the sense that liberalism does undercut this nation’s culture and traditions, but there is certainly a method to the so-called madness. You see, the endgame is control.
Ultimately, it’s a tug of war – freedom versus control. Our founding fathers came down strongly on the side that government should always be in service of the individual, while progressives (the name for neo-liberals) feel exactly the opposite. Bill Maher, one of the public faces of the progressive movement, has already distanced himself from the very Democratic Party that brought the nation government bailouts and nationalized medicine. Of course, in an election year anyone out of favor with the public gets thrown under the bus. What Bill really wants is control, real control. From Bill’s perspective, it’s necessary because Americans are, as he says, too stupid to manage their own affairs (by that logic, I guess Bill doesn’t consider himself to be an American). So if Americans are too stupid to run their own affairs, who’s left to run the country? The un-Americans, the progressives, that’s who. They would be more than happy to tell us stupid Americans how to live our lives and how much taxes we should pay as tribute to the State.
All of which leads us back to God. You see with God in the picture, you can’t have the kind of control that Bill Maher has in mind. As the Constitution reminds us, this country was founded under the premise that man’s rights flow from God, and not the State. Religious freedom, therefore, is a necessity in a free society. That’s why it’s important to come to the defense of God. In this kind of a struggle, God (and religion), and by extension freedom, are all under attack. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” So in this battle for control, which side will prevail? Some day, the historians will tell our children.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
– George Orwell