Is President Obama Mentally Unstable? A Mental Health Expert Says, "Yes."

Introduction: Remember When I Posted the Article From Psychology Today Claiming the Conservatives are  Lacking in Intelligence?

Two months ago, I authored an article titled "Article from 'Psychology Today' Suggests and Supports the Claim that Racism and Conservatism Lead to Low Intelligence" in response to an editorial authored by Dr. Goal Auzeen Saedi in the online publication Psychology Today titled "Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?" where the good psycho-analyst declares in rather elaborate-yet fallacious details how conservatives tend to be racists, that we are lacking in intelligence and therefore have lower I.Q.s than those who are liberals. Upon reading this article, I found it greatly ironic how Dr. Saedi perpetuated a generalization in the form of a stereotype.  Why I found this to be an irony is because the Left claims to be the political ideology of tolerance and acceptance for all walks of life.  As you know what I love to say when I find something a liberal says to be erroneous and fully of fallacy, "You and I know better." Apparently, though, it is fine for the Left to discriminate against Christians and Jews; those who believe in the Second Amendment and seek to vote accordingly; and lastly, those who identify with the righteous idea of the sanctity of life and fight against the evil institution of abortion that has led to 50 million or so deaths to unborn children, and the genocide of 1.5 billion worldwide since World War II. If humanitarianism is a characteristic of a low I.Q., I will go on record as saying that I will gladly accept the designation of being a "a dumb ass."

As I stated, conservative-libertarians such as you and I are Nature's victims of a low I.Q.  To dare question the logic of these demagogues in society located in the press, Hollywood, and in local, state, and federal governments will result in social and public ostracism. The Left in our federalized-form of government has succeeded in trickling down its influence through public policies regulating every facet of the medical community. No longer are doctors and nurses free and unfettered to adhere to the sacred Hippocratic Oath to which they are sworn upon graduation from medical school; they are now bound to the omnipotence and supremacy of the federal government in diagnosing and prescribing the proper treatment for their patients. We have seen this through decades of creating federal and state bureaus and socialized programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and now the ominous Obama Care sure to create more chaos through massive job layoffs and the controversial "death panels," thus taking the decision of what course doctors feel should be the fashion in which a patient should be treated for his or her maladies out of the hands of the medical professionals. Let us not forget, either, that the decision of what doctor a patient wishes to treat him or her belongs to the government and not the patient.  

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called for all Americans to celebrate July 4th, just three short days ago, as the holiday for independence, not for the foundation our great nation 237 years ago, but in health independence.  But what independence do the people gain from Obama Care?  It is a form of taxation, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, and thus this was how he justified it as constitutional. However, perhaps the greatest Chief Justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall, stated the following (Courtesy of FEE):

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”

The article from which I found this quote (which I actually knew for years, but not the exact wording) was authored by Clarence B. Carson on October 1, 1976.  He continues his analysis of the ruling by stating the following:

1. That a power to create implies a power to preserve.
2. That a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with, these powers to create and preserve.
3. That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme….

The article is fascinating, but I suspect that I probably runs afoul with the Left in America. 

 

As I have done so often, I will once again quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, which states one of the most frightening paragraphs in the history of political philosophy: 

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body.  This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.  In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.

Does the social compact we form with our government upon electing our public officials mean that we give ourselves to our country and thus secure ourselves against all personal dependence? I think not. Ronald Reagan stated in his first inaugural speech on January 20, 1981, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS problem." In stating his disdain for the Tea Party, which promulgates its desires based upon the principles of our nation's founding, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) referred to the conservative-libertarian interest group as "anarchists." While I will willingly acknowledge that there is a need for government, for there is an inherent tendency within men and women to take an inch someone gives and push it a mile, anarchy is actually preferable and more just than the form of government the Left is slowly creating today. If that desire for independence is a sign of a low I.Q., again, I will gladly accept the generalized stereotype bestowed upon me by the Left-dominated society at large.

Is President Obama Mentally Unstable? 

As I have been reading the online conservative publication aptly-titled Mr. Conservative, I find that it not only gives a candid account of the issues facing America today from a conservative perspective, but does so through a saucy, humorous lense.  In today's article published at 7:49 PM EST, the site posted a most humorous and equally-ironic article much like the one I discussed posted in Psychology Today, and yet it is so complete different in the level of its quixotic zeal as it is supportive of the conservative-libertarian plight. The title of the article, "Is Barack Obama Mentally Unstable?", speaks volumes for what so many of us have desired to see in printed format. A conservative publication, unlike so many others of greater notoriety, dared to use medical science in order to attack the president, a practice that, like the article and the psycho-therapist author Dr. Saedi in Psychology Today, is traditionally associated as the Left's practice to embarrass and humiliate the Right.  For years, conservatives have been decried as "dumb," "dunces," and now according to Sen. Reid, "anarchists"; even Ronald Reagan was not immune to this, and he even had to suffer through the indignity of being referred to as "senile." But as you and I know that I love to say when we see the fallacy in the Left's logic and rhetoric, "You and I know better."  President Reagan had the audacity to act the part of the salmon who swim upstream, many of whom to their deaths, in order to complete their natural migration for the ocean to their destiny, and upon delivering his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 11, 1989, he declared that the people who sought to limit government and voted according not only changed the nation, but also the world. 

You may watch his eloquently-delivered address to the nation in the video below:

He dared to dream, and because of that, he was ostracized by the Left in the form of insults and claims of promoting bigotry and racism because he believed the people should be free and unfettered to live as they choose, free and unfettered from the auspices of government.  He was a ideologue, what the Left feared the most, and this was what was most dangerous to them.  They knew that he was not a "dunce" or "dumb," but a throwback to the Founding Fathers who espoused many of the same things Thomas Jefferson did.  He spoke of the "shining city on a hill," and the American people responded.  For 13 years, 1980 until 1993, the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency in ignominious defeat because he refused to believe in the American people's sovereignty, there was "Morning in America," and now there is only a twilight.  We are a nation regressed to the days of Jimmy Carter, when it was our fault that the nation was struggling.  This is the culture promoted by the Left, and you and I who dare to question its modus operandi are branded as unintelligent.  

The psychology issue, again, is one to which I will return the focus of my energies, though I really do not believe that last detour was anything but an expounding upon a principle long in need of discussing.  Mr. Conservative dared to write an article discussing what a mental health professional believes to be the president suffering from a form of mental instability.  If you read my article titled "Sarah Palin and Her Son Trig: Their Quest to End Liberal Hostility Toward Disabled Individuals,", you also know that I suffer from the mental illnesses bipolar disorder and OCD, so I find this article rather intriguing. The expert, named Dr. Sam Vaknin, who is the leading expert on narcissism and the author of Malignant Self Love, discusses this topic in rather great detail and confirms though his medical opinion what we have long believed to be true about the president: He suffers from narcissism.  

The article will be posted below (Courtesy of Mr. Conservative):

Is Barack Obama Mentally Unstable?

July 7, 2013 4:49pm PST

Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the man in the White House? Without a doubt, Obama is the most  unvetted, unaccomplished, unqualified person to ever to occupy the Oval Office in American history. Bill Clinton (in reference to Obama’s inexperience) is reported to have told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 campaign, “A few years ago this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags.” Aside from Obama being completely and totally unqualified to be the leader of the free world do we even know for sure that Obama is mentally stable? Dr. Sam Vaknin the world’s leading expert on narcissism and the author of “Malignant Self Love ” has said that ” Obama’s language, posture and demeanor and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that Obama is a narcissist or he may have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Narcissists have a grandiose, inflated, messiah like self image and cannot stand to be criticized. Obama’s Christ like view of himself is very clearly revealed in his Democratic nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 3, 2008 in which he tells a worshiping audience, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Clearly, this is a delusional statement. At the end of Barack’s Super Tuesday speech in Chicago on February 5, 2008 Obama makes another ludicrous and insane pronouncement telling his followers “We are the ones that we have been waiting for.” This is narcissistic double speak; in translation what Obama is really saying is, “I am the one the world has been waiting for.“

Why is so much of Obama’s past shrouded in secrecy and why is there such a plethora of unanswered questions about Barrack. For instance:

1) Why are all of Obama’s college records sealed?

2) Did Obama receive government aid as a foreign exchange student when he attended Occidental College?  

3) Obama admits he traveled to Pakistan at age 20 in 1981. Well then, what passport did Obama use to fly to Pakistan since Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s no travel list at that time?

4) Why did Obama surrender his law license in Illinois after attending prestigious Harvard University to attain one? After attending such a prestigious university like Harvard to obtain a law degree, why did Obama surrender his law license in Illinois in? With so much of Obama’s past hidden and shrouded in secrecy, how can we find out who Barack Obama really is? There is no better way to know a person than by what he says. So let us see what is revealed about Obama by his own words, in his own book “Dreams from My Father.

On page 145 in ‘Dreams from my Father” Obama recalls a trip with his mother to a museum in Chicago.

“At the Field Museum, I saw two shrunken heads that were on display. They were wrinkled but well preserved, each the size of my palm, their eyes and mouths sewn shut, just as I should have expected. They appeared to be of European extraction: the man had a small goatee, like a conquistador; the female had flowing red hair. I stared at them for a long time (until my mother pulled me away), feeling with the morbid glee of a young boy—- as if I had stumbled upon some sort of cosmic joke. Not so much as the heads had been shrunk — that I could understand; it was the same idea as eating tiger meat with Lolo**, a form of magic, a taking of control. Rather, the fact these little European faces were here in a glass case, where strangers, perhaps even descendants, might observe the details of their gruesome fate. That no one seemed to think that odd.”

 

Above is a picture shrunken human head. The man has a goatee like the shrunken head Obama observed. This is what gives Obama a thrill, a sense of “morbid glee.” How ghoulishly frightening and completely bizarre! Does any sane person think Obama’s reaction is a normal one? What mentally balanced, stable human being enjoys seeing the shrunken heads of dead people from another race? Obama, himself, even seems to understand that there is something mentally wrong with him. Barack realizes that is abnormal to take delight in such a macabre sight. He uses the term “morbid-glee” which is almost an oxymoron. Normal people feel sadness and repulsion over morbid sights. This is unquestionably and most definitely a sign that Obama is not of a sound mind. It is irrefutable evidence of emotional imbalance and mental illness. He says, “I stared at them for a long time” until his mother had to pull him away. So we can see Obama was transfixed and mesmerized by viewing decapitated white people. The brutal fate and violent end of these white people gives Obama a feeling of “morbid glee.” And he is in the White House? Obama makes an analogy between seeing mutilated white people to “eating tiger meat”. What an incredible and frightening psychological revelation. A tiger in the wild is a natural enemy to man. Eating a tiger is eating your enemy. Obama makes the analogy between the sight of dead white people as “the same as eating tiger meat with Lolo.” (Lolo is an Obama’s Indonesian step father and his mother’s second Muslim husband) Obama’s own words clearly expose that he views white people as his enemy. The “gruesome fate” of these whites was so pleasurable and satisfying to Obama that he actually describes his feelings as “a form of magic, of taking control.” Obama has deep-seated emotional problems. It is absolutely undeniable that Barack Obama is an anti-white racist.

 (** Lolo was Obama’s Indonesian Muslim step father and his mother’s second husband)

Question for Obama supporters:

What if Mitt Romney wrote in a book that he was in a museum saw the shrunken heads of black people and admitted that it gave him a thrill? Would you be okay with that?

Wouldn’t a white person be condemned as a racist for making such a sick revelation as Obama did? 

Observation: The name of Obama’s book is “Dreams from My Father.” Obama’s Black Muslim father deserted him when he was two and did not return to see him for __ years when he visited Hawaii for two weeks. His white mother and grandparents loved him, fed him, took care of him, nurtured and raised him. The maternal side of his family is American. If Obama is an American, why does not he identify with the American side of his family? Why isn’t the name of his book, “Dreams from my Mother?”

Question: Where do Obama’s loyalties and allegiances truly lie? We have all seen the picture of Barack Obama on a podium during the national anthem with other Democratic leaders. All the other politicians patriotically have their hands over their hearts except for Barrack Obama. Why not Barack? Does Obama have a problem with America’s national anthem, with American values, with American beliefs? Doesn’t Obama pledge allegiance to the United States of America and all her citizens — regardless of their race, creed or color? 

Obama’s makes it clear that his allegiance is not to all of America’s citizens. He admits his racism writing on page 101: “No it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names,”

Note: In Obama’s own words his loyalties are to blacks. The church that Obama attended for twenty years under Rev. Wright reflects Obama’s racist, separatist attitude and Black Nationalist doctrine in the church’s pledge. On the web site of Trinity Church in Chicago which Obama and his family attended for ——20 years, it states:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.” 

 

Question: What if Mitt Romney attended an all white church that only wanted to address the concerns of the white community? Wouldn’t the liberal press be in a rabid, frenzy and immediately label Governor Romney a racist?

Role models are important, they shape our lives. The people we admire, look up to and aspire to be like are an expression of our souls, our inner core values and describe who we are as human beings. So who are Obama’s life time role models? On page 220, Barack lets us know, in no uncertain terms, who has shaped his political views and thinking: 

“Yet I had seen weakness in other men — Gramps (white grandfather) and his disappointments, Lolo (Indonesian Muslim stepfather) and his compromise. But these men become object lessons for me, men that I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates speak didn’t speak of my own, It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandella.”

Observation: Obama admits he is incapable of admiring and aspiring to be like another human being just because of their merits and accomplishments. Does this sound like the great uniter the American people hoped for?. His “father’s image, the black man, son of Africa” (not American) that “I’d packed all my attributes”. Obama seeks in himself the attributes of Martin and Malcom, Dubois and Mandella. That’s funny. I am an American and I admire and have always emulated great men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. If Obama is an American, why does he not aspire to be like great American leaders and patriots?

 

Question: Does Barack Obama condone hatred of white Americans? Does Obama actually hate white people himself?

 A display of Obama’s hatred, animosity and anger towards whites is on page 195:

“The stories I had heard had been hearing from the leadership, all the records of courage and courage and strength and sacrifice and overcoming great odds, hadn’t simply risen from struggles with pestilence or drought, or even more poverty. They had risen out of a very particular experience with hate. That hate hadn’t gone away; it formed a counteractive buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimesjust a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives. I had to ask myself whether the bonds of community could be restored without collectively exorcising that ghostly figure that haunted black dreams.”

Question: Has Obama’s hate gone away? Does Obama think whites are the ghostly figures that haunt, stifle and stand in the way of blacks fulfilling their dreams? If so, then give an example of how whites do that? When he speaks of blacks “exorcising” the ghostly figure (white people) is Obama promoting separatism? 

Is Barack Obama a ticking time bomb? Does he have suppressed Black rage that could explode on America while in the White House? ON Page 81, Obama admits that he does have rage for white people as he writes: 

“Ray (Obama’s friend) was winking at me, letting me in on the score. Our rage at the white world needed no object, he seemed to be telling me, no independent confirmation, switched on and off at our pleasure?”

 

Obama’s confessed “rage at the white world that needs no object”. Throughout Obama’s entire life, he has socialized, befriended and been a companion of people that hate America. (Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis) Obama feels that Black rage against whites is justifiable. This is a consistent pattern in Obama’s life. Obama constantly associates with and is in the company of anti-white racists. The facts prove that Barack Obama feels completely comfortable in the company of, “haters of America.” The only time Obama has ever broken ties with America haters is when his association with them becomes a political liability. This treasonous pattern in Obama’s close friends, associates, mentors, church, spiritual leaders and role models must be taken into account. Why? Because, it is a direct reflection of Obama’s himself. The wise old adage, “Birds of a feather flock together” is relevant in Obama’s case and it is justly applied. It must be, it is the key to discovering who Obama really is. It is glaringly apparent in looking at Obama’s life and reading his words that he gravitates towards militants, radicals and anarchists and that he likes those that hate America. It is impossible to deny this reality about him.

One of Obama’s “life stories” that he discusses in his book is an episode when his grandmother was harassed and frightened by an aggressive black panhandler asking her for money at a bus stop. When Obama’s grandfather tells him his grandmother was scared by someone that was black Obama describes his reaction to the news, “The words were like a fistinmy stomach, and I wobbled to regain my consciousness.” Page 88. Obama is troubled by his grandparents’ fear of black and writes, “And yet I knew that men who might easilyhave been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fears.” Page 89. Obama relates this story of his grandparents fear of Blacks Black friend, Frank. Frank responds by saying, “Your grandmother is right to be scared. She’s at least as right as Stanley is. (Stanley is the grandfather) Sheunderstands the blacks have a RIGHT to HATE. That’s just how it is. For your sake I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not.” Then Frank advises him, “So you might as well get used to it.” Page 91.

Question: Does Obama agree with his friend Frank’s racist ideology that Blacks have a RIGHT to HATE white people? Has Obama embraced Frank’s advice and does he now believe that blacks have a Right to Hate whites?

Obama’s silence is deafening! Notice the man who occupies the office of the Presidency of the United States does not resist, dissent or offer any argument at all. Obama does not protest even slightly to the idea that Blacks have a right to hate whites.

An article in “Life Magazine” causes Obama to have a violent reaction. What is the cause of Obama’s turmoil? On page 51 he describes it: 

“I came across the picture in Life magazine of a black man who tried to peel his skin off. I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation. Perhaps it came sooner for most — the parent’s warning not to cross the boundaries of a particular neighborhood, or the frustration of not having hair like Barbie, no matter how long you tease and comb, or the tale of a father’s or a grandfather’s humiliation at the hands of an employer or cop, overheard while you’re supposed to be asleep. Maybe it’s easier for a child to receive the bad news in small doses, allowing for a system of defenses to build up – although I thought I was one of the luckier ones, having been given a stretch of childhood free from self doubt. I know that seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush.”

“But that one photograph had told me something else: that there was a HIDDEN ENEMY out there, one that could reach me without anyone’s knowledge, not even my own.” 

Question:

What does Barack consider the “bad news” for Black children to be?

Does he mean Black racial qualities like their hair?

Who does Barack Obama’s imagine are his “HIDDEN ENEMIES” — White people?

Just how dysfunctional is, and exactly how much pent up anger does Obama really have?

 On page 110: He writes:

“I had stopped listening at a certain point, I now realized so wrapped up had I been in my own perceived injuries, so eager was I to escape the imagined traps that white authority had set for me. To that white world, I had been willing to cede the values of my childhood, as if those values were somehow irreversibly soiled by the endless falsehoods that white spoke black.”

“White authority?” Does Obama have a problem with Western Civilization? Is Obama bothered by “Law and Order?” Is Western jurisprudence the “white authority” that Obama complains about and rebels against? 

Obama has, “Perceived injuries,” “Hidden enemies” and he sees “imagined traps.” Wouldn’t a person with unreal, “perceived injuries;” “hidden enemies” and someone that sees non-existent “imagined traps” be diagnosed as suffering from paranoia? Anyone with these kinds of bizarre thoughts has serious issues. What a danger Obama is in White House? Barack Obama with power is an accident waiting happen.

Question: Would Obama incite violence and like to see blacks attack whites? Does Obama thrive on racial tension?

It would seem as though he does. On page 191 the torn and divided, plagued and emotionally troubled.

Obama writes:

“In a sense, then, Rafiq (Obama’s friend) was right when he insisted that deep down all blacks werepotential nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward.”

Obama reflects, “I wonderedwhether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towardswhites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.”

Question: So are we to understand that Barrack Obama actually wonders, is undecided and thinks maybe Black politics should direct Black anger towards whites and encourage Black rage against whites? Obama thinks that any politics that suppress black rage or fails elevate Black race loyalty is inadequate?

And Obama is the man who is supposed to bring racial healing to our nation?

Does Obama consider himself to be an American? On page 199 he writes: ‘All the Black people who it turned out, shared with me a voice that whispered inside them—“You don’t really belong here.”

So Obama has a voice inside him that tells him doesn’t really belong in America? Then why does he want to be President of the United States?

On page 301 Obama reaffirms his unstable and insecure self identification: “but that for me only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers.”

Note: He identifies himself not as an American, but as an African. 

Question: If Obama says he does not feel “entirely at home in the West” then why does he delude himself into thinking that he should be the leader of the Western World?

Question: Where does Obama feel he belongs? On page 305, Obama tells us of his trip to the Kenya. At the Kenyan airport he is asked to fill out a form by an attractive black woman airline employee. Upon reading his form, the woman recognizes his last name and asks Barack if he is related to Dr. Obama. Obama says, “Well yes, that’s my father.” Obama states, “That had never happened to him before, I realized; not in Hawaii, not in Indonesia, not in L.A. or New York or Chicago. For the first time in my life, I felt the comfort, the firmnessof identity that a name might provide, how it could carry an entire history in other people’s memories, so they may nod and say knowingly, ‘Oh so you are so and so’s son’ No one here in Kenya asked how to spell my name or mangle it with an unfamiliar tongue. My name belonged so I belonged….”

In Kenya, Obama reveals for the “first time in his life” he felt he belonged. After Barack’s nomination to be the Democratic Presidential candidate, his wife, Michelle, said that for the first time in her adult life was proud of America. Never before proud of your country?? Not even when the generosity of our educational system provided you with the scholarships that permitted you to attend the finest American colleges in the world and obtain your law degree? 

Suggestion: Barack Obama should run for President of Kenya, not America.

Question: What world leader was the greatest influence in Obama’s life?

You might think that since Obama ran to be the President of the Unites States, his biggest heroes in life would be great Presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, right? Sorry! The man who had the greatest effect on Obama’s thinking seems to be the radical, racist, Black Nationalist Muslim leader Malcolm X. On page 86 Obama admits and confesses his identification with Malcolm X in a spiritual fervor that borders on idol worship:

“Only Malcolm’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated actsof self creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”

No compromise? A“New Order”? Martial discipline? Who does that remind you of? Zieg Heil Barack!

 

Continuing in his adoration and spell bound allegiance to the militant Malcolm. X Obama writes on pg. 86 “And yet, even as I imagined followingMalcom’s call, one line in his book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence might somehow be expunged.

Expunging their white blood through acts of violence? That doesn’t sound very emotionally well adjusted to me. How does it sound to you Obama supporters?

If Obama has answered the call to follow the revolutionary ideas of the Black Nationalist Malcolm X; does America want Obama leading us?

Obama has such anger that he finds himself incapable of concealing his resentment or containing his wrath. Obama’s reveals more of his dangerous support for Black Nationalism, their extreme agenda and their radical views. The “Rage of Obama” explodes as he further reveals his alignment and concurrence with racist ideologies and potentially violent views. The threat against whites in Obama’s book is on page 198:

“Nationalism (Black Nationalism) provided that history an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady ATTACK on theWHITE RACE, the constant recitation of black people’s brutal experience in thiscountry, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them. Rid them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race.” This sounds like the promotion of race war.

Obama attended a Black Nationalist church for twenty years. With few exceptions, the leaders Obama follows and admires most are black militants, racists and violent radicals. Logic forces us, and reason compels us, to deeply suspect that Obama subscribes to the Black Nationalist’s idea of a “steady attack on the white race.” It would be extremely unwise for Americans to ignore Obama’s own words. At their own peril, people didn’t pay attention to “Mien Kamph” either.

Obama heralds and has promotes himself as, “Change we can believe in?” Is “The constant recitation of black people’s brutal experience in this country” change? “Constant recitation” means repeating over and over the same thing. “The constant recitation of black’s brutal experience” means never forgiving, never forgetting, and continually living in the past, never moving forward; it means: NO CHANGE!

“The self loathing you (blacks) feel, what keeps you drinking, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them (whites).” Pg. 198.

Does Obama believe we, white Americans, make Blacks hate themselves, drink, drug and carry out the crimes they commit? This sounds like a page out of Jeremiah Wright’s playbook who accuses the US Government of giving blacks drugs.

If you met Obama in college would Barack even socialize with you or be your friend?.

On page 100 Obama explains what kind of people are on his “list of friends”:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sell out, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets.”

Obama is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt a radical; he cloaks himself as a moderate to attain his hidden agenda. “the fundamental transformation of America.” In college and throughout his entire adult life, all the people he surrounded himself with, were far left wingers, anarchists, communists and anti-Americans. This is who Obama is. These habitual lifelong choices of “America haters” by Obama cannot be overlooked. To do so would be shear insanity

On Memorial Day, 2008 (the then Senator Obama) told a group of veterans in Las Cruces, New Mexico his uncle fought during WW II and was part of the American Army that liberated the Nazi death camp in Auschwitz Poland:

“I had an uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps, and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain. That’s why you know the, this idea of making sure that every single veteran when they are discharged are screened for post traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need, that’s why its so important.” Barack Obama May 2008.

Obama isn’t even smart enough to know modern history and that it was the Russian Red Army and not the US Army that liberated Auschwitz. So was this statement  an Obama gaffe or an Obama lie? The reality is Obama just says whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whatever is convenient. He has absolutely no compulsion to tell the truth. Here is a short list of Obama lies:

He won’t take PAC money, he will close Gitmo his first year in office, there will be no lobbyists in his White House, he’ll cut the US federal deficit in half, his father was a goat herder, his father was a freedom fighter, his mother died of ovarian cancer because she was denied health insurance, Obama claimed in a speech in an Alabama church that he was born because his parents got together during the Selma Civil Rights marches. (Ooops! The first “Selma to Montgomery civil rights march” was on March 7 in 1965. Obama was born on August 4, 1961) Obama’s fabrications are delusional. Is Barack so out of touch with reality that he does not realize someone in America is going to check to verify  the authenticity of his fantastic stories?

Obama’s vehicle of choice, a PITCH BLACK campaign bus (made in Canada) without a single American flag on it anywhere. Would FDR, Harry Truman or JFK tour across America on this bus? What is Obama running to be “Emperor of the Dark Side”? Does Obama thinks that he is Darth Vader?

Final Analysis: So what is the answer to the question

“Who is Barack Hussein Obama?”

Barack Obama is an emotionally unbalanced, racist. His own words make this an undeniable fact. Many Republican leaders make an exerted effort to fall over themselves so that they can grovel and proclaim that they think Obama is a “nice guy.” Obama is not a “nice guy”. He is an intrinsically evil human being. Obama is a pathological liar (his word is worthless) and he is not intelligent. He views the world through a leftist ideology and he sees American history as an ongoing “white vs. black” racial conflict due to white suppression and oppression of blacks. He believes social justice will be attained through economic redistribution of wealth He has a radical, militant Black Panther mentality. Obama has taken his hatred for whites and rather than release it in domestic street violence he has channeled his rage into politics. Obama’s destruction of America is intentional. Obama, being the Resident of the United States, is his way of conquering the people he hates. For Obama, occupying the Oval Office and flying on Air Force One is the ultimate victory and final triumph over white Americans, whom he views as his enemy. It is his supreme satisfaction of, “eating tiger meat” once again with Lolo. (pg. 145) Obama’s rage is the burning energy and the driving force behind his quest for power and the White House! Obama was caught off microphone giving a secret message to the Russian ambassador Medvedev for the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Obama whispered that when he is re elected, he will have “greater flexibility.” Greater flexibility to do what? To further weaken the American economy and destroy our national defense. Obama is dangerous because he is capable of doing anything to stay in power (including creating a national emergency, imposing  Martial Law and declaring himself President for life.) Another four more years of Obama and the “fundamental transformation” of America that Obama promised will be completed and the United States of America that we grew up in will be no more. Our national survival is dependant [sic] upon Obama being deposed.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.” Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15.16)

Author: Rock Peters
(H/T) To GodSaveUSA

___

Conclusion: Stating the Obvious of What Most Conservative-Libertarians Have Long Believed to Be True of Obama

While I am a patient suffering from two mental illnesses, I will also go on record by saying that I am also a realist about life.  I know that life is not perfect; if it were, it would not be life.  At the same time, though, do we really want someone with an ax to grind with the majority of the American people simply because they are white and he is half-black? There have been plenty of presidents over the past 100 years whom I have read to have been racists or bigots: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson (he was an opponent to civil rights for blacks prior to developing a political conscience), and Richard M. Nixon.  Conservatives are generally the political demographic in America tagged with this label; I know I have been, because a former friend who is currently a Ph.D., student at the University of Michigan in Medieval English Literature claimed that a political cartoon I posted on Facebook of two men -- one a farmer with a double-barrel rifle, the other a man dressed in what someone might associate a person as an urban thug who was carrying a pistol -- were displayed, and on one side of the picture both men had the firearms while on the opposite side, only the urban thug did.  As a result, he told me that I was guilty of perpetuating a racist stereotype. Apparently, he did not know that neither of the men were black or Hispanic, so race could not possibly be part of the equation. As he kept reading me the riot act over the issue, I simply replied to him that if two white men in a picture with guns on one side and only the urban thug on the opposite end having a firearm make me a racist, I would gladly accept that designation. Of course, upon my saying this, he was horrified, and backtracked in his attempt to engage in damage control.  But the damage was already done; I had lost virtually all respect for the guy who had been my friend for over 13 years, and about a month later while we were in a heated argument over his reference to University of Virginia students as "entitled douchebags" and then his objection to my later comments criticizing those engaged in the Greek life (aka. fraternities and sororities) are that and then he told me that my statement was unfounded and I was too angry against people I perceived to have done me wrong, I replied that he was a hypocrite and then brought up the time he branded me a"racist," our friendship ended.   

Political arguments, as I have experienced first, can and will end friendships just as I told you of the one I had with that person.  As a rule, though, I do not base my friendships on people's political beliefs so long as they respect what I believe as my own opinion as it is my right as a free man to do so. In return, I will recognize their own sovereignty over their thoughts. I generally will not discuss politics with my grandmother because she is a New Deal era Democrat who was born the year prior to Black Tuesday and the beginning of the Great Depression, though she sometimes tries to engage in conversations with me, which I will then state what I believe in no uncertain terms much to her chagrin.  The same goes for my being accused of "racism" or "bigotry." The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln, for "free labor, free land, free men," and for equal rights under the law, and I firmly stand by those principles.  They have not changed over the 159 years of the party's existence, but because the party platform refuses to support subsidizing idolatry and the lack of initiative found in portions of any demographic of the population -- the black community included -- 95% of the black community's votes went to Obama in 2008, and 93% just last November.  When a politician guarantees to his constituents that he will provide them "a house, two cars, and two car garage," it is easy for him to get elected, and that was the case for the Democratic Party after the election of FDR in 1932.  

We are not a free nation anymore, but have we really been in a long time?  The closest our country has come to a true unity as a population of individuals was during the Reagan Revolution.  Unfortunately, those days are in the rear view mirrors of our cars, and any gains economically we have made during the four and a half years President Obama has served have not been credited to the will of the American people, but to the president himself; in fact, Obama said so in a speech during his 2012 reelection campaign:

The difference in the Reagan Revolution and the "Change we can believe" by Obama, then, is night and day. He gives no credit to the American people for economic progress, and how can he?  We have experienced little or not growth since he has been in office, but rather likely an economic retraction. The American people are poorer now than they were under George W. Bush, with 58% of those who manage to procure jobs after having been laid off from their previous one earning less than at their new occupation than at the one they lost. The Left claim that during the Reagan Revolution the richer got richer while the poorer got poorer, but you and I know better because all levels of income were better off when Reagan left office in 1989 than it was upon his inauguration day in 1981; the same cannot be said, though, for the Obama presidency.  If there is anything the American people deserve credit for from him, it is to be thank for being the sheep to his pack of wolves.

In conclusion, then, the article stated the obvious about what conservative-libertarians such as myself have long believed to be true about the president.  While I will stop short of stating he suffers from a psychiatric disorder per se, I do believe he views himself as a messianic figure, as the great unifier.  Unfortunately, he has proven to be anything but that.  He is the most corrupt president in modern times, more corrupt than Nixon for sure.  If he has an anger issue based upon his perception that he is "racially inferior" because he is black, well, I have news for him: the civil rights laws that have been passed over the past 49 years do not simply guarantee equal rights to all people regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, it makes the more equal than the majority of the population. And as George Orwell stated in his immortal dystopian book Animal Farm (1948):

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The party construed to having championed the causes of civil rights now for 50 years just found its greatest opponent, who happens to be a Trojan Horse with designs on a utopia.  Unfortunately, he will find no other phenomena to be true than that of the Orwellian phenomena we read as youngsters in Orwell. We are, therefore, on the precipice of an American brand of Apartheid wrought on by the ruling minority, and we have no one to blame but ourselves due to our recent voting behavior.  

An Important Announcement, Followed By the First Entry on the Blog, Friends of Liberty

Dear Readers,

On Friday, July 5, 2013, I received an E-mail from one Richard Miller, who is the proprietor of a very large conservative political blog titled Friends of Liberty.  Upon reading my article on Ronald Reagan's record on the environment, he was apparently impressed enough to forward to me an invitation to serve as one of his contributing writers on his now-four year old blog; I have never had anyone outside of my closest circles of friends or family members show such interest or faith in my opinions before. Yesterday, after replying to him that I would do so only if it did not require that I neglect this blog, my own personal blog, that has been growing in page views and viewers rapidly since its formation on May 3, 2013, he said that it would not be a problem with him even if I choose to share articles between the two blogs.  At this, I accepted, and after ironing out some details regarding passwords, etc., I wrote my first article, which you will read below, introducing myself and telling a little about my life and background; declaring my personal beliefs; and of course, I supported each and every opinion posited with a brief history lesson, as is characteristic of me to do on my blog.  

Do not worry about me ever neglecting this blog.  I told Mr. Miller that under no circumstances will I ever place his blog above mine in priority.  Your (almost) daily article or two will continue to be written and published.  

I will end this letter by expressing my sincerest gratitude to you, my audience, for reading what can sometimes verge on being tantamount to rants and ravings. I do, however, try to express my thoughts as clearly and concisely as I possibly can, through the tools history provides me as an individual with a degree in the discipline, and finally my firm belief that there is still a bright future ahead for America even at this point in time when so much about our present and the posterity ahead may look bleak.

Thank you, and may God bless you all.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Henderson; aka. "The Son of Liberty"

***

My Introduction to Friends of Liberty: "Thank You for Allowing Me to Serve as a Contributor of Not Just a Blog, But as an Instrument for Liberty"

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

- President Ronald Reagan, 1981 Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

Dear Fellow Patriots,

My name is Jonathan Henderson, and I am a lifelong resident of Knoxville, Tennessee, located in the extreme eastern corridor of the state, in one of the most conservative areas politically in the nation.  I am a 2012 graduate of the University of Tennessee, holding a B.A. in History and a minor in Political Science.  I plan to return to graduate school to earn my Masters in History or Library Sciences and possibly complete the final nine credit hours necessary to earn a degree in Political Science.  My designs are on an occupation as a historical archivist or a museum curator, but I am seriously considering working a political campaign in 2014 for one of the GOP candidates for the state legislator or possibly Rep. John J. (Jimmy) Duncan, Jr., who is our long-time serving congressman in this district.  I have also not dismissed the possibility of running for public office sometime in the future after I attain greater financial stability. My concerns about the direction, or lack thereof, down which our nation is venturing in light of the recent examples of corruption we see with the Obama administration as well as his socialist policies of perpetuating the welfare state that are resulting in the manifestation of class-warfare reignited my interest in politics at the end of 2012 after being largely disenchanted and skeptical about our government upon the failures of former President George W. Bush; and I have only grown more passionate about my desires to work towards ending the cultures of dependency, licentiousness without consequences, and irresponsibility and the lack of personal accountability we have seen out of the American people due to the efforts of the federal government, the mass media, and pop culture since the Clinton presidency. It is my hope that after achieving this, we together will be able to restore the principles of the Reagan Revolution imbued within the phrase,"Morning in America." The metaphor of the sunset on our nation has lasted long enough.  It is time to act, and through my opinions posted on both this and my personal blogs, I am going to act accordingly.

I first want to thank Richard Miller for inviting me to serve as a contributor to this blog advocating the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence during that hot Philadelphia summer of 1776. These three concepts were the first to be attributed to describing those upon which our great republic would be founded, and through the voices of people like you and me, we will continue to perpetuate the legacy of the Spirit of 1776.

In a letter written on June 18, 1813 to Jefferson, John Adams, another of the key Founding Fathers, discussed what he believed to be the three principles behind the foundation of the new republic of the United States: 

(Above: John Adams, Left; and Thomas Jefferson, Right; Founding Fathers and former presidents of the United States.)

Dear Sir

It is very true, that “the denunciations of the Priesthood are fulminated against every Advocate for a compleat Freedom of Religion." Comminations, I believe, would be plenteously pronounced, by even the most liberal of them, against Atheism, Deism; against every Man who disbelieved or doubted the Resurrection of Jesus or the Miracles of the New Testament. Priestley himself would denounce the man who Should deny The Apocalyps, or the Prophecies of Daniel. Priestley and Lindsay both have denounced as Idolaters and Blasphemers, all the Trinitarians and even the Arrians. Poor weak Man, when will thy Perfection arrive!3 Perfectibility I Shall not deny: for a greater Character than Priestley or Godwin has Said “Be ye perfect &c.”4 For my part, I cannot deal damnation round the land on all I judge the Foes of God or Man, But I did not intend to Say a Word on this Subject, in this Letter. As much of it as you please hereafter: but let me now return to Politicks.

With Some difficulty, I have hunted up, or down, “the Address of the young men of the City of Philadelphia, the District of Southwark, and the Northern Liberties:” and the Answer.

The Addressers Say “Actuated by the same principles on which our forefathers atchieved their independence, the recent Attempts of a foreign Power to derogate from the dignity and rights of our country, awaken our liveliest Sensibility, and our Strongest indignation.” Huzza my brave Boys! Could Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, hear these Words, with insensibility, and without Emotion? These Boys afterwards add “We regard our Liberty and Independence, as the richest portion given Us by our Ancestors.” And, who were these Ancestors? Among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. And I very cooly believe that no two Men among those Ancestors did more towards it than those two. Could either, hear this like Statues? If, one hundred years hence, your Letters and mine Should See the light I hope the Reader, will hunt up this Address and read it all: and remember that We were then engaged or on the point of engaging in a War with France. I Shall not repeat the Answer, till We come to the paragraph, upon which you criticised to Dr Priestley: though every Word of it is true, and I now rejoice to See it recorded; and though I had wholly forgotten it.

The Paragraph is “Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Oppulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.” “Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, in general to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from your Ancestors.”

Now, compare the paragraph in the Answer, with the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above: and See if We can find the Extent and the limits of the meaning of both.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien.” Very few however of Several of these Species. Never the less all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer, be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? or those of the Quakers? or those of the Presbyterians? or those of the Menonists? or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore Safely Say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire; as well as Newton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

I might have flattered myself that my Sentiments were Sufficiently known to have protected me against Suspicions of narrow thoughts contracted Sentiments, biggotted, enthusiastic or Superstitious Principles civil political philosophical, or ecclesiastical. The first Sentence of the Preface to my Defence of the Constitutions, Vol. 1, printed in 1787 is in these Words “The Arts and Sciences, in general, during the three or four last centuries, have had a regular course of progressive improvement. The Inventions in Mechanic Arts, the discoveries in natural Philosophy, navigation and commerce, and the Advancement of civilization and humanity, have occasioned Changes in the condition of the World and the human Character, which would have astonished the most refined Nations of Antiquity.” &c I will quote no farther: but request you to read again that whole page, and then Say whether the Writer of it, could be Suspected of recommending to youth, “to look backward, instead of forward” for instruction and Improvement.

This Letter is already too long. In my next I Shall consider “The Terrorism of the day." Mean time, I am as ever; your Friend

"The general Principles of Christianity; and the general Principles of English and American liberty." How very profound was Adams in his wisdom!  However, for the past 50 years, these principles have come under attack by the Left.  I once read an article on the educational website maintained by a gentlemen named Steve Straub called The Federalist Papers about how Americans today identify more with the principles that guided the radical left-wing revolutionaries who prosecuted the French Revolution than those of their own. Adams, in another letter to Jefferson dated March 2, 1816, discussed what these were:

 Quincy, 2 March, 1816.

I cannot be serious! I am about to write you the most frivolous letter you ever read. Would you go back to your cradle, and live over again your seventy years? I believe you would return me a New England answer, by asking me another question, “Would you live your eighty years over again?” If I am prepared to give you an explicit answer, the question involves so many considerations of metaphysics and physics, of theology and ethics, of philosophy and history, of experience and romance, of tragedy, comedy, and farce, that I would not give my opinion without writing a volume to justify it. I have lately lived over again in part, from 1753, when I was junior sophister at college, till 1769, when I was digging in the mines as a barrister at law for silver and gold in the town of Boston, and got as much of the shining dross for my labor, as my utmost avarice at that time craved. At the hazard of the little vision that is left me, I have read the history of that period of sixteen years, in the six first volumes of the Baron de Grimm. In a late letter to you, I expressed a wish to see a history of quarrels, and calamities of authors in France, like that of D’Israeli in England; I did not expect it so soon, but now I have it in a manner more masterly than I ever hoped to see it. It is not only a narrative of the incessant great wars between the ecclesiastics and the philosophers, but of the little skirmishes and squabbles of poets, musicians, sculptors, painters, architects, tragedians, comedians, opera singers, and dancers, chansons, vaudevilles, epigrams, madrigals, epitaphs, sonnets, &c.

No man is more sensible than I am of the service to science and letters, humanity, fraternity, and liberty, that would have been rendered by the encyclopedists and economists, by Voltaire, D’Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau, La Lande, Frederic and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense. But they were all totally destitute of it. They seemed to think that all Christendom was convinced, as they were, that all religion was “visions judaiques,” and that their effulgent lights had illuminated all the world; they seemed to believe that whole nations and continents had been changed in their principles, opinions, habits, and feelings, by the sovereign grace of their almighty philosophy, almost as suddenly as Catholics and Calvinists believe in instantaneous conversion. They had not considered the force of early education on the minds of millions, who had never heard of their philosophy.

And what was their philosophy? Atheism,—pure, unadulterated atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, Frederic, De La Lande, and Grimm, were indubitable atheists. The universe was master only, and eternal. Spirit was a word without a meaning. Liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate. This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure.

Who and what is this fate? He must be a sensible fellow. He must be a master of science; he must be a master of spherical trigonometry, and great circle sailing; he must calculate eclipses in his head by intuition; he must be master of the science of infinitesimals, “la science des infiniment petits.” He must involve and extract all the roots by intuition, and be familiar with all possible or imaginable sections of the cone. He must be a master of the arts, mechanical and imitative; he must have more eloquence than Demosthenes, more wit than Swift or Voltaire, more humor than Butler or Trumbull; and what is more comfortable than all the rest, he must be good-natured; for this is upon the whole a good world. There is ten times as much pleasure as pain in it.

Why, then, should we abhor the word God, and fall in love with the word fate? We know there exists energy and intellect enough to produce such a world as this, which is a sublime and beautiful one, and a very benevolent one, notwithstanding all our snarling; and a happy one, if it is not made otherwise by our own fault.

Ask a mite in the centre of your mammoth cheese, what he thinks of the ‘το πᾶν.” I should prefer the philosophy of Timæus of Locris, before that of Grimm, Diderot, Frederic, and D’Alembert. I should even prefer the Shaster of Indostan, or the Chaldean, Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Christian, Mahometan, Teutonic, or Celtic theology. Timæus and Ocellus taught that three principles were eternal: God, matter, and form. God was good, and had ideas; matter was necessity, fate, dead, without form, without feeling, perverse, untractable, capable, however, of being cut into forms of spheres, circles, triangles, squares, cubes, cones, &c. The ideas of the good God labored upon matter to bring it into form; but matter was fate, necessity, dulness, obstinacy, and would not always conform to the ideas of the good God, who desired to make the best of all possible worlds, but matter, fate, necessity, resisted, and would not let him complete his idea. Hence all the evil and disorder, pain, misery, and imperfection of the universe.

We all curse Robespierre and Bonaparte; but were they not both such restless, vain, extravagant animals as Diderot and Voltaire? Voltaire was the greatest literary character and Bona the greatest military character of the eighteenth century; there is all the difference between them; both equally heroes and equally cowards.

When you asked my opinion of a university, it would have been easy to advise mathematics, experimental philosophy, natural history, chemistry, and astronomy, geography, and the fine arts, to the exclusion of ontology, metaphysics, and theology. But knowing the eager impatience of the human mind to search into eternity and infinity, the first cause and last end of all things, I thought best to leave it its liberty to inquire, till it is convinced, as I have been these fifty years, that there is but one being in the universe who comprehends it, and our last resource is resignation.

This Grimm must have been in Paris when you were there. Did you know him or hear of him?

I have this moment received two volumes more; but these are from 1777 to 1782, leaving the chain broken from 1769 to 1777. I hope hereafter to get the two intervening volumes.

(Above: Madeline Murray O'Hair, 1919-1995, who was an atheist activist. Courtesy of Wikipedia)

We, as a society run predominantly by the Left in political office, pop culture in the entertainment industry, and in the mass media, more wholly identify with the principles behind the French Revolution as opposed to those of ours, its American cousin.  The principles of the French Revolution are based upon atheism, a phenomena that appears to have found its domestic origins in our society sometime around 50 or so years ago. We know that through challenges brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963, first with Engel v. Vitale that the High Court ruled to ban mandatory prayer in public schools, and later Abingdon School District v. Schemp, when the Justices struck down mandatory biblical recitations, this particular period was most likely the beginning of such atheist activists as the late Madeline Murray O'Hair who fundamentally altered the culture and the source of discipline for future generations of children in America. Unfortunately, this direction has resulted in the increase in immorality and violence in our society.  While there are no articles or amendments in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights specifically stating that the federal government and the American people will observe a separation of church and state -- though some scholars will state that the First Amendment guarantees this through its right to freedom of religion --  the concept was actually originated, too, by Jefferson, in his correspondence with  the Danbury Baptist Association:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }

Eph'm Robbins } The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson }

The following is Jefferson's response:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson

A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802

 

(Above: A copy of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association from January 1, 1802. Courtesy of The Library of Congress)

(Above: Painting of the Storming of the Bastille; July 14, 1789. Courtesy of Wikipedia)

The principle of atheism that was the source of authority for the Committee of Public Safety and Directory during the French Revolution resulted in between 16,000 and 40,000 deaths via the guillotine during the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794.  The article on Wikipedia analyzed the French Revolution's legacy, and determined it to be the following:

The French Revolution has received enormous amounts of historical attention, both from the general public and from scholars and academics. The views of historians, in particular, have been characterized as falling along ideological lines, with disagreement over the significance and the major developments of the Revolution.^[148] Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the Revolution was a manifestation of a more prosperous middle class becoming conscious of its social importance.^[149]

Other thinkers, like the conservative Edmund Burke, maintained that the Revolution was the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the masses into subverting the old order—a claim rooted in the belief that the revolutionaries had no legitimate complaints.^[150] Other historians, influenced by Marxist thinking, have emphasized the importance of the peasants and the urban workers in presenting the Revolution as a gigantic class struggle.^[151] In general, scholarship on the French Revolution initially studied the political ideas and developments of the era, but it has gradually shifted towards social history that analyzes the impact of the Revolution on individual lives.^[152]

Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789.^[153] The Revolution is, in fact, often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era".^[154] Within France itself, the Revolution permanently crippled the power of the aristocracy and drained the wealth of the Church, although the two institutions survived despite the damage they sustained. After the collapse of the First Empire in 1815, the French public lost the rights and privileges earned since the Revolution, but they remembered the participatory politics that characterized the period, with one historian commenting: "Thousands of men and even many women gained firsthand experience in the political arena: they talked, read, and listened in new ways; they voted; they joined new organizations; and they marched for their political goals. Revolution became a tradition, and republicanism an enduring option."^[155]

Some historians argue that the French people underwent a fundamental transformation in self-identity, evidenced by the elimination of privileges and their replacement by rights as well as the growing decline in social deference that highlighted the principle of equality throughout the Revolution.^[156] The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world.^[157] However, according to French historian François Furet it was also the origin of totalitarian political ideas, and of the legitimization of systematic, large-scale violence against social classes considered undesirable.^[158] Thus, it had a profound impact on the Russian Revolution and its ideas inspired Mao Zedong in his efforts at constructing a communist state in China.^[159] 

(Above: Early depiction of the tricolor in the hands of a sans-culotte during the French Revolution. Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Not coincidentally, the ultimate legacy begat by the French Revolution -- totalitarianism -- ultimately filled the majority of the pages of 20th Century history books.  Like the French Revolution, the communist states of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China who followed the principles of the French interior conflict resulted in estimates of as many as 130 million deaths combined under dictators Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.  Those nations, the two most notorious for mass murders by genocide or through designed famine to control population growth, were founded upon the principle of atheism as was revolutionary France.  That, unfortunately, appears to be the avenue down which America is traveling today, as our society meanders down the incendiary path towards its own perdition. 

(Above: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, Left; People's Republic of China founder/dictator Mao Zedong, right. Courtesy of Wikipedia)

When I reflect upon my grade school history classes from the 5th Grade onto my AP U.S. History course my junior year of high school in which I received an "A" in the class and a "5" on the AP exam, I recall very distinctly learning that Anglo-America, as it was founded by English men and women, was conceived upon the principles of what we know to be the "Three G's": God, gold, and glory. Let there be no doubt, then, that the most important of those three principles is "God," for it is He who bequeathed to the people over the centuries the legitimacy to endeavor in the world's first modern experiment of self-government through the democratic process, and who manufactured the sacred fire of liberty for us to maintain and to preserve for all time.  Deists believe that there is a God who created the universe and essentially left it alone to take shape as it will.  While I am a Christian, I do believe that some of that concept is at least in part true when I state that though He created the conditions in which we, the people, find ourselves residing, it is up to us to maintain this holy legitimacy in order to preserve a well-ordered republic through the rule of law.  Let there be no doubt, either, that the Constitution was heavily influenced by the Ten Commandments too in terms of the spirit of its laws.

As we know all too well now, our liberties are under attack today by the Left more than ever before.  Sadly, our elected conservative senators and representatives who ran during the elections upon platforms favoring less government and greater liberty have done little more than mitigate these gross series of abuses. In my home state of Tennessee alone, Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, both members of the GOP, have failed to stand up to the Democrats in the Senate adequately enough to preserve our liberties or to protect our jobs. Months ago when the gun control legislation was on the table, both Sens. Alexander and Corker voted to override other GOP members' attempts at a filibuster to halt the progression of the legislation, as Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were among those select few Republican senators leading the charge.  Just last month, when the Senate voted overwhelming to pass the immigration bill, both Alexander and Corker were among those 14 Republicans who voted for it, and now it is up to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to defeat the bill. Unfortunately, I wish I could say that I am optimistic they will do the right thing.

Through the power of the pen for which the Internet and the blogosphere serve as the modern metaphors, we can raise awareness of these abuses against humanity.  Not since the 1960's has America been more divided socially and politically than it is today.  Our leaders since the presidency of Ronald Reagan have lacked the philosophical and moral absolutism "The Gipper" possessed; furthermore, none have ruled with any conviction nor real consent from the governed. I wish I could say that the Republican presidents, congressmen, and senators have represented the interests of their constituents effectively, but I cannot. Perhaps it is time for a changing of the guard.  I will never vote for a Democrat so long as I have a breath to emit from my body, but I find myself these days voting for GOP candidates not because they reflect the same principles and values I have in how I view the manner in which government should be operated, but because they are, as a party, the lesser of two evils. This should not be something we have to endure as voters in a free society. I have had several people who replied to recent articles on my personal blog, stating that the current two party system is a complete and utter failure. Others, though, are more concerned with the direction, or lack thereof, of the GOP, and say that the party is more focused on destroying the efforts of the conservative grassroots campaigns than it is in waging war on the Democrats. Yet another reply, perhaps the most profound of all in the opinion, was that if the GOP fails to find an identity, "it will go the way of the Whigs."  Sadly, all of these assertions are ones upon which I concur.  The party has become divided between factions led by John McCain and Lindsey Graham; and those by Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. How can we therefore, as conservatives with libertarian leanings, expect to have the agenda we wish to be implemented for the good of the nation by our elected GOP leaders enacted, if they continue to fight among themselves?  

(Above: Abraham Lincoln, who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861-1865 during the Civil War.Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Abraham Lincoln stated in 1858 in what was one of his most famous speeches that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  We know today that he meant that the issue of slavery had so divided the nation between North and South that it eventually experienced a schism upon South Carolina becoming the first Southern state to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860, after Lincoln won the presidential election. Lincoln was the savior of the nation in his policies to both end "the peculiar institution" of slavery and restore the Union at all costs, but it would come at the ultimate price of his life.  Likewise, the period between 1955 and 1969 saw the greatest period of civil unrest and social revolution since the first 65 years of the 19th Century when the Civil Rights Movement, the sexual revolution among feminists and homosexuals, the counterculture phenomena, and of course the New Atheists, rallied against the age-old establishment and forever fundamentally altered the course of our society and that of American history, some for the better, while others were for naught. We live in a nation more divided today politically than it has been since those years, with there being no end to the growing hostilities between Left and Right nor those within the GOP in sight.  We must act quickly to vote into office those whom we believe would best serve our interests, who would reestablish the legitimacy and sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and finally, who will restore the Spirit of 1776 within the American people. 

As Ronald Reagan stated in his famous stump speech for Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee for president in 1964 who would sadly lose in a landslide to incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny." Would it not be great if we could return to America the Reagan Revolution's spirit, the one most akin to that of the Spirit of 1776 during modern times, and restore "Morning in America" for all time? 

I know I do.

In closing this article introducing myself, I have posted a video featuring Ronald Reagan at the age of 53. This was his baptism and introduction to the public as a political activist rather than a simple actor, and would ultimately lead to his career in politics. The speech, famously titled "A Time for Choosing," was mentioned above in small detail. His rhetoric during the speech served as the founding principles upon which the formation of the new conservative movement he would usher into the public consciousness upon his election to the presidency in 1980 would be implemented in his policies.  I hope you enjoy the video, and pay very close attention to Reagan as he shares his candid philosophical views of the wrong direction down which America was venturing during the 1960's: