When He Lies, He Speaks His Native Language – John 8:44

I recently watched two movies back to back. Dinesh D’Sousa’s 2016: Obama’s America and Tate Taylor’s The Help from the original story by Kathryn Stockett. Both impressed me with the immense diversity of culture yet underneath a real commonality regarding the human plight.

D’Sousa lines up Obama’s behavior with an anti-colonial perspective that has a left wing flavor but does not spring from the same roots. In support, the film traces Obama’s past and chronicles his affiliations and relationships that would create such a view. Contrary to some other opinions, I found his connections believable and consistent with Obama’s own statements and behavior.

Beth Fouhy from Associated Press takes issue with Dinesh’s presentation calling it “almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best”. She thinks that the almost nonexistent contact with his father would prevent Obama from acquiring his views. Dinesh goes into this in some detail showing how Obama idolized his father causing him take on a mythological stature. This could only occur at a distance as his alcohol abuse and womanizing in closer proximity would prevent this view from being sustained. Also, if he has no impact in shaping his view then why would Obama write a book called “Dreams From My Father”? I’m not sure what Fouhy is attempting since the evidence cleanly supports Dinesh’s take on it.

Following this she refers to the interview with Paul Vitz who provides a psychological opinion of the affect of absent fathers. She opens the next paragraph with “From there, the evidence D’Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin”. Actually the opposite occurs. Vitz’s comments more accurately fit her ‘subjective’ classification. After this, Dinesh digs into some direct influence’s on Obama’s thinking that are heavily supported. So much so that he coins them Obama’s founding fathers. Obama acknowledges them directly in his various statements and writings.

Frank Marshall Davis: Long time Obama mentor and Communist party card no. 47544. He was on FBI’s security index which indicates he can be held in the event of a national emergency

Bill Ayers: Co-founder of Weather Underground which is a communist revolutionary group. He was involved in bombing public buildings as protest to the Vietnam war. He said he wasn’t a terrorist because his acts were not “random” but “Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States.” (FBI poster at left; standing on flag below)

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr: Pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ. Embraces black liberation theology. Famously said “God Damn America” in one of his rants and constantly derides America as evil. In describing the Sept 11 terrorist attacks he reasoned, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought home to roost”. Obama distanced himself as the 2008 election approached since most American's found Wright's views abhorent.

Edward Said: Obama studied under Said at Columbia University. Said served as a member of the Palestine National Council which allowed him to work closely with Yasser Arafat. He views America as a power with a “history of reducing whole peoples, countries, and even continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust”. Said believes that violence is justified against Israel as the land properly belongs to Palestine. The state of Israel is basically a western plant to spread later day colonialism.

The West is guilty of a “subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture." We basically see Moslems and Arabs as “either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

This view can be clearly seen in Obama’s treatment of Israel vs the Muslim world. Our historical friend he shuns and our avowed enemy he befriends. His frequent and endless catering to the Muslim world casts doubt on any depth to his statement of being a Christian. Since the Koran says the disciples made up the story in the gospels and Jesus never died and therefore never resurrected. Since this Muslim sacred text cannot be in error it is at complete odds with the heart of the Christian beliefs. Obama has repeatedly and naively encouraged all religions (meaning the Christians because the Muslims cannot) to set aside their differences and focus on their common goals. Peace, harmony, charity blah, blah, blah. There is no mixing this oil and water.

Roberto Unger: Taught Obama law at Harvard. He is a philosopher and politician from Brazil. He believes that natural underlying principles do not exist. Everything is merely historical carryovers from previous generations not necessarily the best to create a prosperous society. We need to acknowledge this and push forward with renewed non-institutions that better release the human potential or as he says, "make us more god-like".

I briefly perused Unger's "The Future of Religion" and found it consistent with the philosophically laden texts of my Divinity courses. Many words with all hidden meanings. A sample from page 3:

“The second obstacle to overcome is the sentimental attitude to religion. The false supposition that, with respect to claims about God and about God`s work in history, there is some middle position between believing in their (literal) truth and not believing in their (literal) truth. The slide from Feurerbach to Bultmann and beyond as an expression of a will to believe combined with a monumental dose of self-deception.

There is no such middle position. A common intellectual confusion allows us to pretend that there is one. It is one thing to suppose, in the tradition of Christian theology for example, that the narrative of transactions between God and humanity deepens (by analogy) truths already manifest to us in our relations with one another. It is another thing to turn the analogical imagination into a pretext for equivocation about the truth or falsehood of our religious beliefs.

The sentimental attitude to religion weakens the power religion to undermine us and our societies, and makes it easy for us to turn its scandalous provocations into a play with words. One of these sentimentalists about religion tells us that today we have belief without belonging. We are more likely to entertain pretend belief as a ticket to belonging.”

To take some liberty I will attempt to translate. We cannot accept the literal truth of God's work in history (Christ's resurrection). This is self-deception. The historical side cannot translate into day to day perspectives or criticism of other beliefs. We mostly want to belong so we go along with the pretense of belief. Or something along those lines. Basically a complete denial of the only thing that gives religion any validity, the historical death and resurrection of Christ. If you'd like to read more be my guest but no doubt an intellectual unplugged from reality. Not surprisingly, much like the student he mentored.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/pdfs/tanner_lectures/the_future_of_religion.pdf

Interestingly Unger has recently released a video detailing why Obama should be defeated in 2012. Heading up the list is Obama's inability to "advance the progressive cause in the United States". His video 'Beyond Obama' goes into great detail as to Obama's failures and what he thinks needs to be done to right the country.

You could really throw Saul Alinsky in as well. While Saul came from another generation and passed away in 1972 he wrote the textbook for modern protest tactics. Like Obama his fundamental position was to take from the haves and give to the have nots regardless of whether it was earned or owed. Obama received 8 days of intense training at the Industrial Areas Foundation in Alinsky style tactics and taught his “Power Analysis” as a professor at the University of Chicago. Alinsky’s son says that Obama has learned his father’s lessons well and was “proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”

When combined together it becomes fairly clear where Obama has derived his perspectives from. And his actions as a senator and now President confirm that view. The fact that this information was fundamentally invisible to the American public shows both the shrewd efforts to conceal the facts combined with the willingness of the public to choose a leader on entertainment type criteria. We have reaped what we have sown.

Obama prefers this type of voting constituency. That is why he gives away trillions to those who haven't earned it. He's trying to tip the scales where the producers are the minority and the looters are the majority and thus he locks in the vote. Case in point the recent video of a woman imploring people to vote for Obama because she received a ‘free’ government provided cell phone. (of course this was paid for by the American people) But the thought that Obama 'gave' this to her is exactly what he's been saying.

The government 'allows' you to have what you have. You didn't make or earn anything. This type of dogma directly aligns with his upbringing and preferred influences. He will take what he has no right to and give it to those who haven't earned it. This is clearly evidenced in this film and supported by his own actions. This thinking dictates that Obama will work for the demise of America as it was intended to be, bleeding it's resources and efforts to those who will squander them. This, while thinking all along that he is doing what is right for the world.

So how does this play into the dramatically different film "The Help". What's common is that two distinctly different cultures exist side by side without an inkling of the reality that exists underneath. The negro maids of the south bear the responsibility of raising their white employers children all the while being treated with the racial prejudice predominant in the 1960's. They won't let them use their indoor toilets so build separate ones for them to use outside. The endless abuse hurled onto their 'help' is tolerated for fear of termination and reprisal with the support of the entire community.

A book is undertaken by Eugenia Phelan (white) with the assistance of two of the maids that details the real goings on in the community. The predominantly white population wants their dirty laundry under complete wraps so they can continue the awful status quo. The book is finally published, turning the entire community on it's rear.

In some reverse way Dinesh's documentary does the same for Obama and his past. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the eventual positive resolution of the Help is what will result from Dinesh's work. It's fascinating for me to see the easy recognition and agreement with the thesis of prejudice in the Help in contrast to the desire to not acknowledge and willingly accept the abuse wrought onto the American people by this administration.

Prejudice knows no race, creed or color and is equally hurled and any and all. Perhaps the most hated people in American are the white, middle class, middle management bracket. They have nothing and no one on their side. Every negative being hurled is always straight at them. They work their entire lives getting abuse from above and below while all their efforts are belittled and their production is stolen and given to others. Yet they are actually the heart of what has made America great.

This is all eerily akin to Atlas Shrugged. Eventually the producers will be sucked dry and the looters supply will dry up. At that point there will be an implosion of sorts as you see in Europe. Entire populations wanting to be 'given' what they think is their due. The country's leadership has already spent those assets and much, much more. The leadership that the unhappy population continually voted for so they could steal from the future. As we can see, it's a thinly veiled ponzi scheme. Perhaps Bernie Madoff wasn't so far off, he was just going with the flow.