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?”