For many Americans, Obama’s blackness represents moral progress in our country. From this perspective Obama, as a prototypical black American man, symbolizes the journey of a black person from the slave block to the highest office of the land. By voting for Obama, America could have its first black president and thereby accomplish some political expiation for her racist past. In contrast to this psychological and moral interpretation of the Obama campaign, the Obama political ideology is quite a different story.
Obama’s Blackness and the American Vision of Unalienable Rights
In the sense of Obama’s blackness representing the moral development of a country, both those on the left and right applaud a narrative of emancipation. The right wishes for a story of emancipation built upon unalienable rights—in accordance with natural law—to emancipate all men.
A description of the left’s “multiculturalism” is well encapsulated by the latter half of the title of Darwin’s tract: “the preservation of favored races [and sexual orientations] in the struggle for [political] life.” In this struggle, doctrinally leftist racial minorities, pro-aborts, anti-patriarchs, homosexuals and non-ex-homosexuals are elevated at the expense of the less favored classes . In other words, “multiculturalism” is not about cultural diversity, it is about the celebration of hating God and His natural laws. It is about fomenting envy, class warfare and supplanting the self-evidency of our Creator with dictatorial humanism.
Curiously, provided that such advocates are of the Mohammadian tradition, the leftist vision of emancipation ironically celebrates the elevation of anti-abortion, anti-adult-to-adult-homosexual and pro-sexual slavery (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24). Although Islam’s anti-abortion, and aspects of its ambiguous anti-women-committing-adultery and anti-adult-to-adult homosexuality does comport with natural law, Islam’s virulent sense of religious apartheid (e.g., Koran 9:29) is viewed as being more than compensating, and useful for the left’s attack on natural law, freedom of conscience and Christianity.
But perhaps nowhere is the left’s diversity–hating faux–multiculturalism more apparent than with ex-homosexuals. Not only is it important to the “multicultural” left that ex-homosexuals are not elevated, but it is important that not even the existence of these pariahs is acknowledged.
Ex-homosexuals are an existential threat to the politics of Trojan-horse civil rights “multiculturalism,” which disguises homosexuality as a civil right, and in the left’s struggle to conquer virtue with vice, redefines marriage. But, we have already opened a can of worms, haven’t we?
Tip-toeing then beyond the leftist discrimination against demographic diversity, we consider the Obama presidency in light of our founding fathers’ vision of unalienable rights. The narrative of a nation finally securing the black man’s unalienable rights invites one to think about the policies of our first black President. As a full-flowered multiculturalist, Obama seeks to destroy the foundations which lead to the emancipation of the black man.
Obama’s Blackness and His Creator
Against the historical backdrop of The Declaration’s assertion of the self-evidence that all men are created equal, the “multiculturalism” of the twentieth century has installed a government sponsored origins narrative which dictatorially asserts that no competing doctrine to the nothing-times-nobody-equals-everything creation fable be tolerated.
Under the “multiculturalist” origins story, we are the product of time and chance and thus nothing can be self-evident and there is no Creator and thus there are no real unalienable rights. Such an origins myth denies even the possibility of securing rights that it denies.
Dictatorships have little respect for debate. Even an unopened Bible on the desk of the government school science teacher is a threat to the multicultural religious creed denying the self-evidence of our Creator. But if our Creator is deemed unconstitutional, how can a government which denies our Creator, affirm—let alone secure—the pre-eminent rights this Creator provides?
Not only has Obama not interposed his black emancipation imagery to counter the fanciful, unscientific and intolerant government–dictated origins narrative, but in 2010 (and 2011) Obama has made multiple speeches where—although he quotes the “unalienable rights” of our Declaration—Obama makes the conspicuous omission of “our Creator” who self-evidently endows all men with these rights.
While most American blacks are supportive of school choice, teaching the Bible in schools, questioning evolutionism, freedom to criticize the creed of Darwinism as racist, teaching against homosexuality, teaching creation … our first black President is not.
Obama’s Blackness Used to Market Unalienable Rights into Politically Incoherency
In three separate occasions in April of 2011, Obama discussed unalienable rights at DNC events which he keynoted. Obama said:
“It’s the fact that we’re able to keep two ideas together at the same time: One, that we’re all individuals with—endowed with certain inalienable rights and liberties; and we’re self-reliant; and we’re entrepreneurs; and we don’t want folks telling us what to do. That’s part of—being an individual is so important to us. But we also have this [second] idea that we’re all in this together; that we look out for one another; that I am my brother’s keeper….”
This is of course absurd. Obama’s imagery is that Americans have a “right” to be the slave of another. “We don’t want folks telling us what to do,” but we are told that we do want wealth redistributors from Washington ordering fines, penalties, threatening prison, threatening to take our homes (at gunpoint if necessary) if we don’t comply with the federal redistribution agenda. Obama pitches the positive philanthropic act of giving the needy benefits, but if the government redistributes wealth,
- Does not government promote a lifestyle of being on the dole?
- • Is the moral and spiritual health of the federal government well enough to educate the recipients of wealth redistribution in the truth of Christianity and the Bible that George Washington said are indispensable pillars for self-government?
- Does the federal government attempt to help the recipients of government wealth redistribution identify their mistakes which led to their unfortunate state of dependency?
- Does the federal government even stigmatize dependency and the forcible removal of wealth from another?
But let us not confuse the act of freely giving to another with the act of being accosted by organized crime in order to further the organized crime.
What Obama really wants to say is that we have the right to the fruit of another man’s labor. However, Obama cannot unleash his slave-agenda in such a conspicuous fashion. So he resorts to semantic subterfuge.
While Obama’s remark about being our “brother’s keeper” is a biblical allusion, it is a remark made by the first murder, not by God. The Bible does not say that we are our brother’s keeper, or that we should have an atheistic, natural law–resisting government mediating our brother’s keeping. Actually the Bible tells us, “If anyone isn’t willing to work, he should not eat.” It is terrible how the left abuses not only our unalienable rights, but also the Bible.
While Obama’s blackness affords him a powerful platform to reinforce unalienable rights, Obama’s fealty for “multiculturalism” and left-wing statism is unable to coherently embrace the American concept of unalienable rights. Obama cannot stomach the benevolent Creator who provided all men with both a natural moral order and our beloved unalienable rights.
Obama’s Blackness Used to Wage War on Natural Law
On 17 June 2011, amidst a context of the Islamic religion having been the ideological basis for global terrorism, wealth retardation and the religious cleansing of Christians (e.g., Koran 9:29, 9:5), the UN thought it was a good time to develop a resolution against a much less extensive violence problem, violence against homosexuals. The Huffington Post cited African objections to this resolution
Nigeria claimed the proposal [from the U.N.] went against the wishes of most Africans. A diplomat from the northwest African state of Mauritania called the resolution “an attempt to replace the natural rights of a human being with an unnatural right.”
I don’t think most Africans desire to commit violence against homosexuals. Unlike Obama, most Africans view homosexual behaviors to be unnatural, against the natural order of mankind. When Obama heard of someone announcing their homosexuality, he celebrated the parading of the unnatural behavior as a momentous occasion.
In contrast to the Nigerian and Mauritanian diplomats, the Obama administration thought this UN resolution was an excellent idea and issued a statement on the same date. Whereas the UN resolution focused on homosexuals freedom from violence, Obama pushed more toward legitimizing homosexuality and delegitimizing heterosexual marriage writing, “The United States stands proudly with those nations that are standing up to intolerance, discrimination, and homophobia.”
The imagery that comes to mind with this statement from our first black president is the parallel between the plight of black people against racial discrimination to the plight of homosexuals against moral discrimination. But whereas black people cannot avoid being black, people who perform homosexual acts can avoid homosexual behaviors. Further they can also be freed from homosexuality. God can free people from homosexuality. He does it every day. If a homosexual will surrender to the cross of the Lord Jesus, God will make a new creation out of the homosexual.
While Obama could have used his blackness in a powerful way to uphold natural law, Obama instead employs his blackness to betray his blackness and to betray the American black emancipation story’s rooting in natural law.
Obama’s Blackness and Islam
In stark contrast to the ostensible Obama narrative of America’s moral progression paralleling the emancipation of the once black slave, Obama’s policy on Islam promotes Islamic slavery and Islamic sexual slavery (Koran 4:3) so that this slave doctrine religion is draped with the moral cover and economic benefits of a 501(c)3. And then
While Obama may not be a Muslim, he is perhaps the world’s foremost Muslim apologist. Second only to the high frequency of Obama’s calls for class warfare, Obama calls for the full acceptance and celebration of Islam. Whitehouse.gov lists dozens of times where Obama has said, “The U.S. is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” (Obama has publically made this remark hundreds of times.)
But what shall we do, dear leader, if Islam is at war with the civilized world (Koran 9:29, 5; 4:3)? Put a few drones in the sky as we extol the virtues of Islam?
Obama eulogized the passing of Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi—who called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs”—as “a voice for faith and tolerance.” Is it not curious that America’s first black president is complicit in stigmatizing a race of people via perpetual religious demonization? Would Obama so eulogize a member of the KKK who said that black people are “descendants of apes and pigs”? Wasn’t Trent Lott’s career ended for much less?
How can our first black President so overtly subordinate the morally superior U.S. ideal of self-evident unalienable rights to Islam’s religious apartheid (Koran 9:29), sexual slavery (Koran 4:24) and offensive genocide (Koran 9:5)? Obama’s policies indicate that Muslims, blacks, the non-productive and homosexuals should be more equal than white productive Christians.
By the doctrine of “multiculturalism”, Obama’s war narrative is interpreted as an episode of global workplace violence, with Major Nidal Hasan being the archetypical over-stressed workforce multiculturalist. Not only is there no war with Islam, but there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Hasan’s associations with the Obama assassinated American Muslim terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki and Hasan’s vigorous emulation of Mohammad are apparently mere incidental multicultural road stops .
Even as our first black President shills for Islam—and therefore for Islam’s sexual slavery—he sanctimoniously and hypocritically asserts that his government has a zero tolerance policy for trafficking in human persons.
Obama’s Blackness and Socialism
At its mean, Obama’s socialism is of the genre that takes from the virtuous and gives to the degenerate. Obama’s socialism punishes virtue and rewards vice. By taking the fruit of the producer’s labor and tendering it to one who did not earn it, Obama’s socialism directly wars against the “self-evident” teachings of “nature and nature’s God.”
Whereas Obama’s skin color invites us to celebrate the emancipation of the black man from the clutches of the white, Obama’s politics invites us to celebrate the enslavement of the producer to the non-producer. If we all agree that black plantation slaves had an unalienable right to liberty—and therefore a right to the fruits of their labor—how can we deny this same right to wealth producers in our day?
Given both our current racial demographics and the ever-present demographic evidence of natural law, our first black President’s politics invites us to celebrate the enslavement of the white married heterosexual male—and his family—to the heavily pigmented, to select minority favored melatonin groups, to Muslims, as well as to homosexuals. Each of these Obama-favored racial and sexual groups impose a greater per capita tax burden on our miserable “multicultural” collective.
Obama’s Blackness vs. His Phony Accomplishments and Identity Documents
Not only is Obama America’s first black president, but significantly he is also America’s first “affirmative action” president. Of course “affirmative action” is Orwellian-speak for racial preferences and racial discrimination. Obama is the anti-Martin Luther King Jr. ideologue. Obama’s “accomplishments”—entrance into prestigious schools, President of Harvard Law Review, State Senator, US Senator, President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner—have more to do with his melatonin level, his ability to disqualify political opponents and his leftist ideology than with any actual accomplishment.
Obama is both the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and apparently the first HLR president in a long time not to have written a casenote and a comment to obtain the position. Fittingly, “Once elected [president], Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal.”
Obama is not the author of his “autobiography.” As if one fraud per book is insufficient for this fraudulent soul, the Obama-voiced audio version omits all references to his “most influential mentor,” communist and pornographer Frank Marshall Davis.
Rather than cultivating a nation of morals and laws, America’s first black President has tipped the nation’s justice scales to be a respecter of privileged men. Incredibly, even though Obama’s long form birth certificate released on the White House web site is a conspicuous work of photoshop. This damning evidence is simply a non-issue for our highly privileged leftist black president.
Even though our conspicuous the-emperor-possesses-no-birth-certificate drama is also laden with the-emperor-possesses-a-fraudulent-social-security-number—and a highly anomalous selective service registration—Obama’s blackness and the leftist media adoration cover for all these mere legal matters.
But the real enablers of our first black President’s conspicuous felonious crimes (not to mention Benghazi, Fast and Furious, using the IRS as a political weapon, using the NSA to spy on all Americans, a covert assassination program for Americans deemed to be terroristic, …) of course lies with the complicit Republican timidity to treat him as one capable of obeying law. This Republican cowardice is a terrible racist insult. The Republicans have acquiesced to make America’s first black presidency truly “special,” as in “special Olympics.”
Obama and the Emancipation of Blackness from Cognitive Accountability
For the black talking heads—from Al Sharpton to Colin Powell to Bill Cosby—even questioning our first black President’s birth certificate is racism. At least if done so by white emperor-watchers.
So permeated is our politics with the elevation of the black race over the white, that all that is necessary for the claim of racism to stick is for one of the black royal class leaders to make argumentum ad hominem. It is only because Obama’s racist argumentum ad hominems against the white Boston police officer—whom Obama falsely accused of “act[ing] stupidly”—was made in his capacity as President did Obama find that these argumentum ad hominems no longer carried the day. And so Obama was forced the indignity of hosting an inter-racial—and ostensibly reconciliatory—beer summit.
And by this same miracle of melatonin, the belligerence and thuggery of the self-identified “no limit nigga,” Trayvon Martin, was anachronistically transformed—both in the media and in Obama’s weltanschauung—to possess an innocent baby face. Martin’s melatonin levels enabled a no-limit legal, media and political circus.
Despite Zimmerman’s life being threatened by a large population of lawless melatonin rich individuals, Obama’s compassion lay entirely on the side of the thug’s family, on the side of the one whom Obama inappropriately said would resemble his own son. Because Obama did not directly speak argumentum ad hominems against the more melatonin poor Zimmerman, Obama apparently learned from his mistakes against one of Boston’s finest. The Zimmerman cased exposed Obama as a danger to the nation: as one conspicuously prejudiced—unbothered by facts and morals. Obama tendered no inkling that when Trayvon died, justice could have already been served on the street. Obama expressed no concern for the well-being of the neighborhood watchman. Obama’s tendentious response suggests that Trayvon’s melatonin functioned to morally offset even any possible culpability for violent assault.
Obama is perhaps history’s greatest anti-American. As a putative black American, Obama embodies a kingdom divided against himself. Obama is destroying black America, wealth production, respect for law, our foundation of natural law and unalienable rights, our money, our work ethic and the American dream. As the political leader of the U.S., he is driving the country to civil war.
While Obama’s blackness afforded him a unique opportunity to right the ship of our jurisprudence—our cultural identity in self-evident natural law and our common understanding of God-given personal liberties including life for the pre-born—Obama has used his blackness to govern in the opposite direction. Obama is an evangelist preaching the incoherency of “multiculturalism” and is an exhibit of rebellion against God. Obama stands at the apex of a cancerous political culture – metastasized in both political parties—which wars against the God of our beloved unalienable rights: “Confessing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God….[His] conscience…. written on their hearts…. for an image in the form of corruptible man…” (Romans 1:22, 23; 2:15).
 It is interesting to note that while the right has a wealth creation paradigm, the left has a zero-sum gain paradigm.
 Al Awlaki was the US Secretary of the Army’s selection of a moderate Muslim by which to engage an outreach effort to appease Muslim-Americans. According to the “multiculturalist” paradigm, Al Awlaki had all the trappings of a moderate Muslim: He was the imam or Islamic religious leader at mosques and universities across the country. Al Awlaki was hailed by the multiculturalist NY Times as, “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.”Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.