The last controversy about Obama choosing to keep God out of his rendition of the Gettysburg Address is another very telling indicator of how the mind (or what takes that name) of this man works.
Who would, believing in the Holy Trinity, do everything possible and impossible to expunge God from every public statement? Nobody, is the easy answer. Lame excuses of wanting to “respect” those who do not believe in God are as stupid as wanting to follow the rules of Ramadan so that the colleague near you is not offended at seeing you having lunch, but then again one like that would obviously leave God in the Gettysburg address so that the Christians are not offended, too.
It is evident to everyone with a brain that for a Christian to want to expunge God from the public sphere is tantamount to be ashamed of his faith; which no Christian could ever, in conscience, be, so that of this man we could only say that he has lost his faith.
We will, therefore, have to conclude that such a man is an enemy of Christianity, bent on sabotaging it from the comfortable spot of his convenient Christian facade.
Obama, the son of an early example of liberal college slut, certainly did not get any religious education from his mother, or from his anyway absent father. He grew up in a Muslim environment, and attended schools – I am informed – reserved to Muslims, which means he either was considered such, or was such, or certainly did not have anything speaking for his being a Christian. When millions in the West were listening to the bells of the local church, he heard – and stated he is still very fond of – the call of the Muezzin. When he went back to the US – after being abandoned by his mother, too; such are liberal parents – he was raised by his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother, whose liberal ideas are well known and, by the way, clearly shown in the daughter they raised.
But did young Barry improve when he went back to the “country under God”, the United States? Not really.
His Christian facade was the one of a rabidly racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, a man from whom even Obama at some point had to distance himself, and only after repeated controversy. Is this a good Christian credential? Not likely.
Does he attend church now that he has – finally – canned Wright? Very rarely; apparently a couple of times a year, on those TV occasions. Does he defend Christian values? Never. He would have his daughters abort if they were “punished with a baby” (my words, not his: punished. with. a. baby), and what he calls Christian values are without exceptions the flags of the atheists and liberal culture, from de facto socialism to de iure sodomy.
Not a Christian, then, for sure. Certainly not a Muslim. A clearly thoroughly secular man, very probably as atheist as Stalin, with a cultural predilection for the religion in which he grew up (Islam, of course), and just that ridiculously thin varnish of Christianity that is necessary to become President in the USA.
A whitened sepulchre like few others on this planet, Obama incarnates the hypocrisy of the liberal classes, feigning some lip tribute to Christianity in abstract whilst trying to eradicate it from the planet in concrete.
Stalin was, at least, more honest.
From yesterday, “backpedaling” is officially called “making a second decision”; or so does the Gay President believe.
Methinks, the evidence of the Syrian government having carried out the attack is rather thin; and the Gay President, being, erm, gay, has decided to
back make a second decision. It appears after the defeat of the Gay PM in the UK other allies have become more cautious, or more probably a sustained bombing campaign without the support of the still special ally wouldn't look very much “hope and change”.
What a Christian notices is that the dangers for the Syrian Christians have not played any role. It is probable that attacks will be carried out in the end, and the Syrian regime (our sons of a bitch, remember…) will be more or less weakened, and perhaps crushed, by way of the attacks. Or it can be that Obama will only order “cosmetic” attacks to show he really cares for humaniteee, but these attacks will result in nothing more than an embarrassment for the Syrian government. In all cases, Christians in the area will not play any role. Obama calls himself a Christian only for reasons of political convenience, but is a fully secularised atheist with an emotional link to the Islam he grew up with.
I can only imagine that here two interests have converged: Obama's desire to appear the human rights angel, and the desire of the Pentagon to give a sound thrashing to Hizbollah and, indirectly, Iran. If this is so, the British stance has not changed anything in the second motive but it has radically changed the first: you can't play “hope and change” and the humanitarian paladin when your closest ally clearly indicates you are a cowboy.
Still, I wanted to share with you my discovery of the new way of saying “backpedaling”.
It is rumoured the first Western bombs might fall on Syrian target as early as tomorrow, Thursday, though I think the Western public opinion will need some day more to digest the news.
One wonders if the same zeal would have been put on display had it been discovered that the rebels are the authors of the chemical weapons deployment.
When G.W. Bush bombed some sense into Iraq without any definitive proof of massive chemical weapons held there, the entire socialist/pacifist/alternative/perverted world couldn't feel good enough condemning him. Mind: Saddam was a man whose cruelty was above suspicion, and who had already practiced genocide on a terrifying scale. The most dangerous man on the planet, bar none.
This time there is, again, no smoking gun that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons; the scale of the alleged attack is, for what it's worth, infinitely smaller; and yes, the Syrian government poses thousand obstacles to a proper analysis of what is going on; but so did Saddam. And yes, they probably did it; but so Saddam wanted everyone to believe – inside and outside his country – that he did have the potential for devastating, genocidal attacks.
One begins to notice. When “hope and change” bombs away a regime without proof, everything is fine. When Dubya does the same with an infinitely more dangerous opponent, he is the Cosmic Bastard.
Mr “Hope and Change” will bring on the wrongest possible change, and possibly put the Christian in Syria in a hopeless situation. The Western intervention will bomb, first of all, the hope of Christians in Syria for a peaceful life.
I can't avoid thinking the intervention spells the end of Assad's regime. I will not cry for the bastard. I will cry for Syria's Christians. Even bastards have their use.
And no, I do not condone the use of chemical weapon. If I were the POTUS, I would help Assad's regime so they are not in such dire straits as to use them. If it means being on the same side as Hizbollah, amen to that. You can't have Christians killed and forced to flee just because you don't like Iran. A strong Presidency would have dozens occasions to punish Iran without Syria's Christians being put in such an Islamist hell as the one that will reign – though the BBC won't tell you – after Assad's gone.
Yes, there are risks in this. There are risks in pretty much flippin' everything one does in the region. But heavens, if Western powers do not have an eye for the situation of those poor Christians in Syria, in Egypt, in Lybia, in Iraq who will care for them: the Islamists?
Punctually after a post of mine expressing the quandary in which the American voters find themselves – an atheist enemy of Christianity, or one who would be pretty much like him if he needed to, and makes a decent Christian President impossible through the “just a bit better than Obama” mentality – Father Z publishes a list from a reader about the many ways in which Obama has shown he is an enemy of Christianity and, if he really must choose a religion, is obviously biased toward Islam (I think it’s called “change”, or such like…).
The reading is more than impressive, and if I were an American voter would give me some fuel to at least try to rationalise why I am making it impossible to have another strong Conservative ( answer: because I always end up voting for the RINO the Republican elites pose in front of me) and might still be doing the right thing.
If there is such a thing as a state of Christian emergency in the choice of the President, perhaps we are getting near to that point.