Obama A “Post-Racial” President? Think Again

Barack Obama 6 SC Obama a Post Racial President? Think Again

Those Americans who have been able to pry themselves away from their video games, their satellite television, and their sports obsessions have probably heard the tragic story about Trayvon Martin’s death.  This young African-American was allegedly unarmed when he was shot by Hispanic George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman.  An FBI investigation is currently being conducted to determine the facts regarding the case.  God-fearing Americans, please pray that justice will prevail for all parties involved.

A primary focus of the investigation is the 911 call made by George Zimmerman. The call will be diagnosed by special technicians to determine if George mumbled any racial slurs before the shooting.  If it can be proven that he did, then his claim of self-defense will crumble under the weight of a “hate-crime” accusation.

During Obama’s presidential campaign, he portrayed himself as the great racial unifier.  He said, “…we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction.” (Political Intelligence, March, 2008)   The president seems to contradict himself when he fails to constrain from weighing in on the racial issues that surface from time to time. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering his tutelage under the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Derrick Bell, William Ayers, and a multitude of other extremists.

Obama finally entered the fray in response to strong criticism from the likes of Al Sharpton, the perpetrator of the Tawana Brawley hoax, and Louis Farrakhan, who spews his hatred for Jewish people by exalting Hitler as a “very great man” and Jews as being “satanic” and their place of worship as “satanic synagogues.” (DefendingtheTruth.net, March 19, 2012)  Instead of falling back on his previous theme of “we may not all look the same”, he emphasized that he and the victim have certain similarities.  “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

Many are questioning the President’s motive behind such a statement?  Was he trying to comfort a hurting family, or was he using his words to stir racial tension and mobilize African-Americans to support him?  He has been losing the political backing of many African-Americans who are not satisfied with his performance as president over the last three years.  Many are offended by the idea that their vote can be earned by handing out more candy (welfare) instead of providing them with more jobs in order to make a respectable living for their families.

Newt Gingrich climbed up on his stump to declare without hesitation that President Obama intended to spawn racial tension with his comment:  “What the President said, in a sense, is disgraceful.  It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period.”  Gingrich went on to say, “Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him? That’s just nonsense dividing this country up?”  (The Hill, 3/21/12)    Questioning Obama’s intentions seems to be a legitimate quest, but in all fairness, only Obama knows the motive behind his words.  He may be calling a beer summit again on the White House lawn to explain himself to the nation.

Trayvon’s tragic death occurred after the NBA All-Star game in February.  About one week later, the Coon family from Kansas City was struggling with their own tragedy. Melissa Coon’s son, Allen, was targeted in the school he attended, East High School.  During a discussion regarding Black History Month, Allen, who is white, tried to answer a question when his African-American teacher, Ms. Karla Dorsey, said to him, “What would you know about it?  You’re not our race.”  (The Moral Liberal, March 25, 2012)

Probably far less people know about what happened to Allen Coon than what happened to Trayvon Martin.  There is no justification for comparing the two incidents.  One boy is dead while the other still lives. But both incidents reveal that racial hatred is still a cancer that affects our culture. Allen Coon, 13,  was approached by two older black males who doused him with gasoline and set him on fire. An investigation into the incident indicates it was a hate crime because of what was said as they set Coon aflame, “This is what you deserve.  You get what you deserve, white boy.”  (Katie Pavlich, News Editor, Townhall, March 5, 2012)

Certain Americans are questioning why they didn’t hear President Obama’s voice when Allen Coon was set aflame. Why didn’t Attorney General Eric Holder condemn this horrendous crime?  Why didn’t MSNBC’s Al Sharpton and Rainbow Coalition’s Jesse Jackson and Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan mount their steeds and ride into St. Louis declaring all hate, whether perpetrated by blacks or whites, wrong and unacceptable?

We so often vehemently rise up against the sin we see in others, a reflection of a sin that may be prevalent in our own lives.  Rather than confess our own sins to God, we try to justify them by discovering and magnifying them in others.  We feel so much better about ourselves if we can find someone worse than we are.  We feel a measure of self-hatred when we see our ugly reflection in the humanity of others.  Racial hatred exists and always will because the hearts of men are depraved.  Laws and courts and attorneys may be useful in limiting the effects of racial hatred in our society, but only the grace of God can eliminate the stain of racial hatred from the soul.  Shouldn’t that be the message of the ‘Reverends’ Jackson and Sharpton?

Related posts:

  1. Journalists Ignore Reality That ‘Post-Racial’ President Isn’t By Dan Gainor, Business and Media Institute In the run-up…
  2. ‘This Is How The Great, Post-Racial Promise Of Obama Ends’ … Continue to Post…

Norway’s Amazing Pro-gay, Pro-choice, Anti-racist, Masonic, Big Government, Zionist, Agnostic, Breakdancing, “Conservative Christian” Terrorist!

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

A deluded Christian leader predicted the world would end on May 21, but this weekend’s Norwegian terrorist attack has raptured the liberal media into the third Heaven. They exulted that the terrorist, who killed at least 76 people, is a “Christian fundamentalist” and possible “neo-Nazi” with (they repeatedly pointed out) blue eyes. Anders Behring Breivik appears to be precisely the white conservative the Department of Homeland Security has spent two years warning us is the “most likely source of terrorism” in the United States. There’s just one problem: Breivik states he does “not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or God,” questions “[i]f there is a God,” defines Christianity as as a cultural construct to oppose Islam, favors a “secular” society, supports abortion in many circumstances, describes himself as “pro-homosexual” and “pro-Israeli,” wants to transfer child-rearing from the family to the government, hates Adolf Hitler, belongs to the Freemasons, supports a “New World Order,” wants to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple…and has a soft spot for breakdancing.

As he was about to unleash his deadly assault, Anders Behring Breivik released his 1,500-word manifesto 2083 — A European Declaration of Independence under the pen name Andrew Berwick. Unlike many of the mass media “journalists,” this author has read nearly all of it. It paints a picture of Breivik that shatters the mainstream media template of an angry Christian yokel.

The Rise of the “Christian-Atheist” and “Christian-Agnostic”

To begin with, he does not appear to be a Christian. He insists atheists and agnostics “are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it.” He then asks:

So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).

The Cross, he writes, “should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostics or atheists” (p. 1307).

To facilitate the new Crusades, Breivik and a group of others refounded the Knights Templar in April 2002. On page 817 of his tome, he notes that the 12 founding members included an “English Christian atheist,” a “German Christian atheist,” a “Russian Christian atheist,” a “Dutch Christian agnostic,” and three people with no religious description. That is, seven of the 12 founders do not feign any religion whatsoever.

The Knights’ ranks would be open to atheist recruits, whom he said would fight for secularism:

Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage….European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist. (pp. 1361-2, Emphases in original).

For a “Christian fundamentalist,” Breivik skirted the definition of Christianity and diminished the importance of its practice. When describing his preparations for the attack he wrote, “If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out…If there is a God I will be allowed to enter Heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past” (p. 1345).

However, he seems on thin ice for this belief. On page 1324, he introduces his “Christian justification of the struggle.” It consists of one verse from the Book of Psalms. In a later section on “self-defense” (pp. 1327-1334), he cites a series of Old Testament passages — and the verse in which Christ tells St. Peter to put his sword away, “for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword” (St. Matthew 26:52-54).

Paganism may have played a greater motivating role than the religion of the Crucified One. Breivik writes, “Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity” (p. 1360).

Despite his lack of faith, he has no timidity in planning to transform Christianity — or kill its leaders. Finding the faith of his fathers too passive and “suicidal,” he and his fellow knights “will rejuvenate” the Christian Church “by implementing our reforms” (p. 1307). The Church will always take a second place to secular learning, saying it is “essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.” Later he says, since Pope Benedict XVI has not called for military coups in Europe, he “has abandoned Christianity” and is “a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt, and illegitimate pope…we will take the necessary steps to eradicate the corruption which is continuing to plague the Church” (p. 1327).

“Church leaders” who disagree with the Knights are listed as “Class B traitors” who will incur the “death penalty and expropriation of property/funds,” although he graciously allows, “Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.” He courteously tallied the exact number of Class A and B traitors in each EU country from the most (Germany at 82,820) to the least (Malta at 417).

Although he intends to kill at least some of the Church’s leaders, he does not target many of the issues held as vital by most Christians.

Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion, Anti-Family “Christian Fundamentalism”?

Traditional Christianity opposes abortion, promiscuous sexual activity, and the homosexual agenda, but Breivik finds himself on the other side of these cultural issues. In an online post, he wrote, “we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist[,] pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought.” Elsewhere, he says we must “Support Israel’s fight against Jihad” (p. 1243).

He assures us the sexual revolution “is not a Marxist concept but rather a liberal one,” and thus one we have to preserve. “So how do we preach chastity to a mob that wants unlimited access to free sex? The answer is that we don’t.” He added it was important not to “ram a puritan and deeply conservative way of life down the throat of everyone” (pp. 1168-9). Instead, he envisions the development of autonomous “liberal zones” similar to Las Vegas, where anything goes.

He allows for abortion ‘in the case of rape…or if the baby has mental or physical disabilities. The liberals zones may be exempt [from] this law” (p. 1179). A “ban on abortion,” he writes, would “strip women or basic rights” (p. 1181).

Many of Christianity’s cultural opponents have sought to redefine marriage. So does Breivik. “Marriage must be based on a specific agreement between a man and a woman who creates [sic.] an advanced pact which must have a limited validity of at least 20 years” (pp. 1176). These contracts fit into his plan to transfer child-rearing from the family to the State.

“Outsource Breeding” for the State

Similar to other totalitarians, Breivik the alleged “Christian fundamentalist” would destroy the family. He proposes what he calls “outsource breeding” by women in “low cost countries,” who would produce babies on demand. The parents could select sex traits via “reprogenics” (pp. 1192-4). Once the engineered babies arrive on shore, Breivik would have “the state, or state funded institutions take on the fostering [of] these children.” This will begin with “kindergarden boarding school” at “age 0,” where they will be “assigned a specific surname,” and continue through college at age 25 (p. 1182-3). The “parents” assigned to them would follow them for at least 25 years and be paid based on “performance” (p. 1196). To ease matters, schooling will be replaced with a “Brain-Computer Interface,” which loads “15-30 years” of learning “from an external device to the brain” (p. 1199).

If Breivik values few Christian conservative issues, he has strong convictions that there are too many people on earth — approximately three billion too many.

Anders Breivik: The John Holdren of Terrorism

Breivik wrote that “Overconsumption, pollution, and overpopulation are the three problems that threaten the future of life on earth” while calling for “global population control” (p. 1200-1). “We should create population capacity guidelines for continents or countries. If starvation threatens the countries who have failed to follow our guidelines, we should not support them…or send them any kind of aid.” “Our planet should not exceed 3 billion individuals so radical policies will have to be implemented” (p. 1202).

An environmentalist campaign of population control hardly sounds Christian or fundamentalist. However, it closely echoes the writings of current Science Czar John P. Holdren, who envisioned a similar scheme in his book Ecoscience.

Breivik appears to be an economic centrist. He wrote, “To my left you will find a socialist, to my right you will find a social democrat” (p. 1355). He favors the “development of alternative energy” to “save the environment” (p. 1199) and argues it is “essential” that “national states have a controlling stake in” multinational corporations (p. 1196).

The Breakdancing Zionist “Neo-Nazi”

The media intimated Breivik may be a neo-Nazi, based on his concern for Europe and, apparently, his blue eyes….

Read more.

Video: The Obama Legacy

Video: Democrat’s Ad, “We Minorities Should Stick Together”

Cartoon of the Day: Red Ink Proves You’re Racist!