Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Obama Gets The Bible Wrong

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has once again tried to prove he understands Christians and Jews by using an example from the Bible to advance his socialist, fairness, eat-the-rich agenda to America. In Vermont, he offered the usual pap about “looking out for one another,” then announced “I am my brother’s keeper.” To remain politically-correct, he also added “I am my sister’s keeper.”

He seems to have misunderstood the story of Cain and Abel. After Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage over an offering to God, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain, being a good Democrat, lied. And then he asked the immortal question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer to that question has dogged Jews and Christians ever since and has brought on millennia of soul-searching. But Cain’s answer was not meant to mollify God. It was meant to put God off the track, maintaining that he couldn’t possibly know what had befallen his brother. God is not so easily fooled.

Obama was addressing a gathering of college students. It’s likely that most of them have Marx committed to memory, but have not read the Bible. The lesson Obama was pushing was that we are responsible for each other, in a Marxist sense, via government control. It was well-received among his audience who couldn’t distinguish between a job and Job.

Obama told the audience: “I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility—those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together.” He then went out to point out his “accomplishments.” The bank bailouts, the takeover of Chrysler and General Motors, student loan relief, and of course, Obamacare. Each of those is the government looking out for his cronies and free-riders, and has nothing to do with individual responsibility, hard work, or self-help.

His administration doesn’t even comprehend what people looking out for each other means. His idea is not looking out for each other, but rather the government looking over your shoulder in order to decide outcomes. He’d have been more honest asking for alms for the love of Allah.

Then, so there would be no mistake about how much the government values taking care of each other, he launched into a vile and misleading attack on conservative values. “An economy built to last is one that supports scientists and researchers and science. Whether we’re talking about stem cell research or climate change, we don’t need science deniers. We need people to understand that America has always succeeded because of our belief in science, our investment in research.” Thank you, Dr. Frankenstein.

Obama doesn’t understand the difference between government imposing its agenda on an unwilling public and people helping each other. That last statement also proves that he doesn’t understand the difference between the scientific method and junk science supported by the government agenda. And then there’s that minor ethical question of destroying human embryos using the taxpayers money to perform Mengele-like research. If used as intended, those embryos might very well have been implanted in infertile women who truly wanted a child. At which point, they would have become our brothers and sisters.

Now get this: “We won’t win the race for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security if we were just applying some you’re-on-your-own economics. It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade. We just tried this. What they’re peddling has been tried. It did not work." And socialism did?

Where to begin? Who’s proposing “you’re-on-your-own economics?” Conservatives promote free enterprise with government oversight to prevent cheating. The Founders even put an interstate commerce clause in the Constitution in order to prevent excess and interstate squabbling. It’s the difference between chaos and the concept of ordered liberty. It’s the liberals who want everyone to be able to “do his own thing” so long as it doesn’t bump up against the government agenda.

Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busters didn’t exactly stand back and allow the monopolies to control everything. It took his cousin Franklin to go over the line and create government agencies to interfere with private enterprise. Conservatives promote free enterprise, not unrestricted predation. The government has a proper role—as a fair referee. Progressives like Obama think that means changing the rules of the game while the game is still being played in order to produce a “fair” outcome.

At a time when the free-riders comprise 49% of the voting public and pay no income taxes at all, Obama’s next statement rings hollow: “Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and the country can’t afford, then one of two things are [sic.] going to happen. Either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else.” The old socialist rant. If somebody prospers, somebody else must suffer. It’s nonsense, of course, but it appeals to those free-riders. So never mind telling the rich to pay more in income taxes until you first demand that everyone—everyone—shares the burden.

Obama is a would-be autocrat. He loves his people, and he knows what’s best for them, no matter how much they may not like it. So it seems to me that the proper question Americans should be asking Obama is “am I my keeper’s brother?”

24 comments:

Typical College Student said...

Uh, but, uh, ummmm....Jesus said having money and not giving it to the poor was bad, right? So that means Jesus was a socialist, right?

Joel Farnham said...

What I am getting tired is having to automatically discount or assume that Obama and crew are lying. It is tiring.

rlaWTX said...

yep, Joel, if TOTUS & Co say the sky is blue and the grass is green, I go check first before I agree.
(and 'round here both tend to be brown)

LawHawkRFD said...

TCS: That's what they're teaching them in the liberation theology churches and the Marxist colleges. LOL

rlaWTX said...

Considering his "preacher", I'm not too surprised TOTUS gets his Biblical points messed up - OH! he wasn't listening to him either - that'll leave even bigger holes in his Christian ed!

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: If we do this right, we'll only have to put up with it through Inauguration Day next January. He can't do a lot of damage domestically that can't be undone fairly quickly, but I'm very concerned about what the Supreme Egotist is likely to do overseas, particularly as a lame duck (that's "d"--duck).

StanH said...

Barry the Brainless strikes again. Being the smartest man on the planet he certainly muffs quite a bit - - of course he’s speaking to blithering college children who’s only grasp on reality is what they’ve read in books. I know with my own kids, college age and post college, they give me some harebrained liberal tripe, they get there ass handed to them, in a loving way. I hope, and pray most parents do the same. This insipid prick (Barry), is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with academia.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: That's right. He got his understanding of Christianity from Muslims when he was little, then from a Marxist homosexual mentor in Hawaii, and finally from Rev. Jeremiah Wrong in Chicago. He might just have a slightly strange view of what he thinks is Christianity.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: He says the most outrageously incorrect things and gets away with them with the loving assistance of the MSM (who are fellow ignorati).

He is sticking with his latest lie/mistake claiming that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn a "highly popular" Congressional Act (Obamacare) which was passed by a large majority. You don't have to be a Harvard Law editor and a U of Chicago constitutional law professor to know that Marbury v Madison did exactly that in 1803, and that the court has done it regularly since then, including most of FDR's radical but highly popular New Deal legislation.

He apparently thinks that if a majority of the Congress (or the people) voted to reinstate, say, slavery that the court should not overturn that law if the majority was large enough. And exactly what "large" majority in Congress is he talking about with Obamacare? As if the size of the majority has anything to do with constitutionality.

At least San Fran Nan grudgingly said she would accept the court's decision. Obama's stump speech sounds very much like a threat to the court.

T-Rav said...

"Lame duck"--rhymes with lame f

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: And just in case the court sticks its nose into too many constitutional issues, Obama is ready with his executive orders. He couldn't get amnesty in Congress so he changed the immigration enforcement rules. And now, he's gone even a step farther. He plans to extend chain illegal immigration by granting "unlawful presence waivers" for those who are here illegally but have relatives who are here legally. There's no end to this louse's chicanery.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Ah, there's a potential poet among us. LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Obama's interpretation of the Bible doesn't bother me. I'm more troubled by Santorum's version. Santorum's version is everything Obama says above plus hate those who think differently.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: It bothers me, a lot--BUT I certainly take your point. I expect Democrats to be elitist, intolerant, doctrinaire, and demagogic. The left of the Democratic Party is clearly anti-Christian by any definition save liberation theology. Those who are Christ-based and/or Bible-based have a much stronger presence in the Republican Party. That said, Santorum turns Christian love and tolerance on its head. We have a primary candidate who plays right into the hands of the "ain't we tolerant" Democrats. I don't know if Santorum is a true hater in his heart of hearts, but his type of messianic zeal is easily turned into oppressive action. More importantly, since it is earth-shatteringly important that Obama be defeated, we don't need this kind of intolerance in the party if we expect to win in November.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I think another way of looking at Santorum's theology/politics would be "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free--and if you don't like the truth the way I see it, I'll shove it down your throat." That latter part must be contained in one of the Lost Gospels. And it sounds an awful lot like Obama's version as well as that of a certain Middle East-based religion of peace.

tryanmax said...

Barack Obama has got to be the worst publicity for Harvard Law School imaginable.

"...his audience who couldn’t distinguish between a job and Job."

How could they? They've never seen either.

LawHawkRFD said...

IF ANYONE OUT THERE IS WATCHING TODAY'S THREE PRIMARIES, please feel free to report what you know here. I just can't take another round of primary watching, but we should at least know how they're turning out.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Well, it's about time. Potential legal clients should check their lawyer's background first. If the lawyer is a Harvard grad, find someone else unless you can determine that the judge is also a Harvard grad, in which case the facts, law and the Constitution will be ruled irrelevant.

"They've never seen either." True, true, true.

Tennessee Jed said...

I think you mentioned this in one of your comments, but I'm not surprised B.O. doesn't know the bible. I think he knows plenty about Black Liberation Theology and Critical Race Theory, but not the Bible. Christians are about being charitable. Liberals are about total control of your money and total control over you.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Obama knows only what he wants to know. His religion is All-You-Can-Eat-Smorgasbord--pick whatever you like, and if it's not enough, go back for more. Enliven your choice with a little Marxist seasoning, and you have the perfect religious meal.

Per capita, conservatives exercise Christian charity at a much, much higher rate than Smorgasbord liberal Christians. The latter would rather have it taken from them in the form of taxes and redistributed to the undeserving than to have to involve themselves in the less sanitary manner of giving it personally and voluntarily to the truly needy.

LawHawkRFD said...

Obama doubled-down on his ignorance of the Constitution today. He admitted that he was a bit off-kilter about it being "unprecedented," and added "since the New Deal." Yep, we told him that, but he wasn't listening. Now, he's misstating the entire purpose of the Constitution and the court by demanding that the court implement "good social policy" instead of ruling on the constitutionality of his socialized medicine bill. Finally, he essentially threatened the court by saying they'd be in a lot of trouble if they ruled against him. That is what a Chicago shyster calls "respecting the law."

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Obama acts like he wants to grab a willow stick and beat the "BAD" justices behind the woodshed. Trouble is the justices can and will strike back. The three page college thesis assigned to Holder is nothing. Merely a shot across the bow.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Given his other proclivities, I'm wondering if Obama will try a court-packing scheme. Even FDR couldn't pull that one off with heavy majorities in both houses of Congress.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: That will be tough for Holder. Like most lawyers in their childish first year of practice, he doesn't know why they're called "briefs." His concept is that writing hundreds of pages of nonsense outweighs three pages of clear thinking. This will be a real chore for him.

Post a Comment