Kooks Now Run The Asylum, Part 2
By: Frederick Meekins
With the Obama agenda, the New Age mindset shares the perspective that you are not so much a distinct individual worthy as such but rather a mere component emanating outward into larger and larger groups. For example, at the lowest level you are part of the COMMUNITY.
Note that the family has been skipped over entirely as the prerogatives of the reactionary fecund union between a monogamous man and woman must be overridden by the preferences of the bureaucracy administering the larger group. At the highest level, all identity is subsumed into an absolutist holism. Obama prophesizes, â€œ…the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.â€
Chesterton, or someone nearly as wise, once remarked that one shouldnâ€™t take down a fence unless you know why it was put up. Ladies and gentlemen (especially ladies), if we are to live as one common humanity, do you really want a Pakistani tribesman with Taliban sympathies to have a say over how you live your life in terms of whether or not you can go outside without a bag over you head, be permitted to drive a car, or even have windows in your home not painted over so that you can look outside.
A world without distinctions was also a dream shared by Communists. And as has happened in all regimes that sought to obliterate all distinctions save those imposed by the all powerful state such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Red China, the attempt here will result in a wide-scale abridgement of basic human rights.
For example, throughout his inaugural address, Obama made the attempt to depict himself as no respecter of persons on the basis of race or ethnicity by denouncing segregation and the like as a â€œdark chapterâ€ of our nationâ€™s history. However, from an examination of the other rhetoric employed by the new President, like the pigs in Orwellâ€™s â€œAnimal Farmâ€, it is quite evident that Obama views some racial groups as being more equal than others.
For example, in his inaugural address, Obama dropped lines such as â€œfrom the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was bornâ€ and â€œwhy a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oathâ€. From the sound of it, youâ€™d come away from Obamaâ€™s speech thinking the Presidentâ€™s father was a very honorable man.
Obamaâ€™s father was anything but as he was little more than a drunken bigamist scoundrel hardly worthy of being immortalized as part of the annals of Inauguration rhetoric. Obamaâ€™s grandparents, who actually raised and provided for Barack even when his own mother abandoned him in favor of the wonders of Indonesian blacksmithing, were not even worthy of a single mention.
After carefully cogitating over the differences that might make an alcoholic bigamist morally superior to an elderly couple that would take in their grandson and raise him as their own, in the eyes of Obama it must be that his father happens to be a Black African whereas Obamaâ€™s maternal grandparents were just in their grandsonâ€™s own words â€œtypical White peopleâ€. And just as Communists in the past set up a more stringent class system in their alleged attempt to eliminate this particular social distinction, in the name of racial equality Barack Obama will likely do everything in his power to expand minority set asides and favoritism.
This underlying contempt for White people was evident throughout the remainder of the inaugural oration. For example, following in the grand tradition of Democrats picking poets that barely make sense such as Maya Angelou at Bill Clintonâ€™s, not to be outdone Obama also felt compelled to feature a poetess few had the bravery to admit publicly just how lousy she was. And in keeping with the theme of these shenanigans, Obama commissioned an ode in the spirit of his own brand of inanity.
Mixed between banalities such as â€œpatching a tireâ€ and a few worthy insights such as the centrality of words in the human processing of sensory experience, â€œPraise Song For The Dayâ€ was lit with a number of code words one can find without too much trouble if schooled in the kinds of imagery leftists peddle in as they foment revolution. For example, the poem reads â€œSing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would keep clean and work inside of.â€
Ladies and gentleman, those names of the dead to be sung are not those of the servicemen who died on behalf of the United States as it is not the nature of Obamaâ€™s malcontent colleagues to enunciate respectfully about our armed forces. The only uniforms they will speak favorably of are those of the civilian security forces that will no doubt over the course of the next few years be authorized to break into our homes to see if we are eating government proscribed meals, what our thermostats are set to, and what kinds of light bulbs we have screwed in. Rather, even though most Americans are publicly willing to treat those of other races cordially, such lines are designed to yet one more time rub Americaâ€™s nose in the issue of slavery.
Some will claim that only the mentally and socially unstable would dare read between the lines and point something out like that. However, research points out that the woman that presented the poem is the one subverting American institutions and Obama should be embarrassed for having made her part of the inaugural festivities.
Frankly, Obamaâ€™s inaugural poet is such a literary pervert that in comparison Bill Clintonâ€™s Oval Office trysts could be included as an addendum to the next edition of Bill Bennettâ€™s â€œBook Of Virtuesâ€. According to a Brent Bozell piece titled â€œNo Poetry Controversy?â€, Elizabeth Alexander exhibits a disturbing interested in mutilated genitalia throughout her published work and postulates that Black athletes being paid millions of dollars per year are as mistreated as Rodney King (who probably wasnâ€™t as mistreated by police as media would always have us believe) and even the innocent tragically lynched in decades past.
Those endorsing her lyrical undertakings will snap, â€œDr. Alexander is a respected Yale professorâ€. If that is the case, this nation is even worse off if such mental swill is what parents are paying and arm and a leg for for their children to be intellectually poisoned in the name of education. Iâ€™ve known smarter and wiser high school dropouts than this.
Up until that point, most of the anti-American and anti-Anglo sentiment had been hidden in euphemism that the unsuspecting could not openly identify though manipulated by in terms of their perceptions nonetheless. By the end of this national folly, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama hopes to take the country over the course of his presidency.
To close the ceremony, Rev. Joseph Lowery offered the following benediction: â€œLord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask that you help us work for that day when blacks will not be asked to get in the back, when brown can stick around…when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.â€
Some might chuckle at this, as Obama no doubt did since on a number of occasions such as his â€œ60 Minutesâ€ interview and when Wanda Sykes longed for the death of Rush Limbaugh, displaying his inability to stifle jocularity when propriety would have him do so. However, there are dangerous misconceptions in that prayer if these sentiments uplifted to the Almighty are permitted to become the foundation of policy.
For starters, Blacks are no longer required to get in the back, and neither should they. Since these radicals have opened the door for the slingers of racial slights, if anything, Whites these days are the ones metaphorically being asked to get in the back of the bus in terms of Affirmative Action and related ethnic set asides.
For there is still no White History Month. From what I am able to gather, Whites are about the only ethnic group that does not have their own museum explicitly named after them on the Mall in Washington (and the Museum of American History does not count as the last time I was there about a decade ago displays depicting Hispanic culture enjoyed top billing with an exhibit of a sombrero-wearing, trumpet-blowing skeleton being prominent in my memory). Furthermore, an associate of mine who has a college degree and a considerable amount of work experience is unable to advance beyond an entry level position whereas blatantly incompetent Blacks are moved into higher levels of management whose only qualification happens to be that they are Black.
In the comment, â€œwhen brown can stick aroundâ€, what this apostate either playing at being a minister of God or one so mentally deficient as to have bought into the revolutionary swill eroding Americaâ€™s foundations is calling for is blanket amnesty to all illegals. Maybe this preacher should have added a witty line about â€œthe brownsâ€ obeying the law and coming here in compliance with duly constituted procedures and then only if they want their first earthly political loyalty to be the United States of America.
In another offensive line of the poem, Lowery expressed a longing for the day “when White will embrace what is right”. Utilizing his previous lines as a guide as to how to interpret this one, one could conclude that he does not believe Whites have overall embraced what is right.
Oh really? Is he not allowed to stand before the country and be as much of a national embarrassment as he wants to be? How about a line how these groups should stop blaming Whitey when most of their problems these days stem from their own refusal to behave themselves?
But in perhaps the most disturbing line of the benediction, Lowery intoned, â€œThat all those who do justice and love mercy say â€˜amenâ€™.â€ Such an imperative implied that, if one does justice and loves mercy, one must add oneâ€™s spiritual ascent to this inane babbling and, that if one does not, one approves of injustice and oppression.
Yet did not Obama in the very same address drone on with platitudes about tolerating other viewpoints? Obama said, â€œWe are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.â€
Not a single Muslim or Hindu had anything to do with the founding of this nation and George Washington remarked it was impossible to be a good American and not believe in God. One should not have to grant verbal consent to the warped multiculturalist conceptions of justice and mercy if one professes to cherish what these values originally meant.
In his few short months in office, Barack Obama has set more ruination of this country into motion than most presidents do over the course of their entire administrations. And unless Americans come to understand the kind of worldview enunciated by the President and his allies at the Inauguration, this nation stands little chance of remaining that shining city on a hill that at one time gave hope to oppressed people around the world.