Skip to main content

THE REAL OBAMA : Pandering to Religious Socialists

Barack Obama is so shaping up to be essentially the same ideological man the country foolishly-elected in 2000. If he isn't he certainly looks to be adopting George W. Bush's national religious socialistic tendencies hand-over-fist, but with even more grandiose visions to be fulfilled from on-high.

Barack wants to expand "faith-based" initiatives, using public funds to steer resources to churches and religious groups. One need not be troubled by Obama's decades-long personal religious ties to an inflammatory wingnut to be severely troubled by this latest from the Democratic party left's would-be messiah.

Amazingly, he dares disguise this government expansion as some hybrid form of uber-government, a massive combine of religious groups endowed with government largesse.

""The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said.

(Personally I would have said "Government is simply too big for any of us to solve the challenges we face today".)

No offense, but the only thing scarier to me than a religion-peddling big government Republican is a religion-peddling big Government Democrat. No progressive in their right mind would be anything but outraged by what Barack Obama is rapidly evolving into.

I have a feeling the secular "faith-based government" lefties (with whom I agree about the secular part, but not the faith in government part) will (or should) be regularly beating themselves about the head-and-shoulders as Barack Obama reveals who he really is (or really isn't) in the months ahead.

As their erstwhile messiah shows himself willing and eager to blur the lines between church and state, his secular left deliverers may begin to realize what some of us saw long ago in the cultish quasi-religion that became of his campaign.

Turns out it wasn't quasi-religion but more like old-time religion...good old fashioned mind control bait-and-switch kind of stuff.

I am confident the hardest core Obamabots will spin it thusly (as with all other precedent revelations of Obama's dismal true colors) :

"Oh but Barack is different. [*coooooh*].
He is a new and improved kind of religious national socialist. He won't bring us the evil religious national socialism of George W. Bush."

Personally, I'll take a complete pass on religious national socialism, and any phony pandering snake oil huckster peddling it, whether from Texas or Chicago.


Obama said, "In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work."

(Excuse me.....BLECHHHHHHH.)

One must wonder if God speaks directly to Barack, like to his soul brother George W., and if Barack believes his election will fulfill God's will.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I spent a bit of time telling Obama-supporting friends of mine that he'd break their hearts. But even I didn't expect it to happen less than a month after he clinched his party's nomination!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...