Feb 17, 2014

The Ethos of Obama's Change

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."  ~   Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

While our freedom has been under siege for quite a while, historians of the future will most likely look back on 2009 as the year that President Obama's pledge to fundamentally transform America would become a reality.  With complete disregard to our constitution and the learned wisdom of nation's forefathers, Obama would sign legislation that would in essence subjugate one of our foremost human rights to the dictates and opinions of other men.   In October of 2009,  President Barack Obama signed into law hate-crime legislation that would criminalize one's very thoughts, thus delivering the coup de grâce for freedom in America.  At that moment and with the stroke of a pen, the ardent deep-held religious beliefs and convictions of millions of Americans would no longer be sacrosanct and the free expression thereof criminal...

Obama's change has brought about a Kafkaesque change in America where fear is ubiquitous. It is the fear of being ostracized, the fear of reprisal, of retribution, the fear of financial or personal ruin, that have forced Americans from all walks of life to practice self-censorship in every aspect of their daily lives.   It is self-censorship that forces one to choose between their own dignity and self-respect or the safety and security of not only themselves, but of their their friends and family.  It is the worst kind of censorship because it thrives on hypocrisy, sycophancy, and mendacity   It is self-censorship that infringes upon one's freedom of thought, and it is our freedom of thought that serves as the very progenitor of all our other freedoms. There is nothing in this world more destructive to human rights than self-censorship.

Perhaps even more insidious than the law itself is the continued promotion of the fallacy that the purpose of the law is to protect the rights of minorities.   As Ayn Rand so eloquently stated, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Obama's actions are not without historical precedent, from the fires of Qin to the the sinking of the Weimar Republic, it is the breach with cultural and religious tradition that is symbolized in a physical act, but as always, the essence of the ongoing revolution is mental.   In the circumstances that we are faced with here it's not just the mental revolution itself but of the profound symbolism of the physical act, for the gay rights movement, this wasn't just another milestone in their campaign for gay rights, this was Barack Obama their ecumenical saviour unsheathing his sword and leading them across the Rubicon.

For a leader to force change upon his people is to lift a sword against them, a sword that's sole purpose is not to preserve life, but to take it.  Having chosen the path of the warrior as opposed to that of the statesman brings us to the bitter realization that the êthos of Obama's fundamental change is not egalitarianism it is totalitarianism.

For Obama's ideologues and the gay rights advocates, having now crossed the Rubicon and being inspired not just by physical act itself, but moreso by the outlawry of it, the revolution has taken on a form of totalitarian intolerance.  A recent example of this totalitarian  intolerance was the lynching of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame for simply expressing his thoughts on homosexuality.  Rather than engaging Mr. Robertson, the left exposed their own bigotry and intolerance by virulently attacking him and demanding that he be silenced.  Kudos to Mr. Robertson for refusing to apostate himself as the left had demanded.  Ironically, this time around, the revolution is not just being televised but downloaded and watched by an audience of millions globally, many who are experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives and who recognize recrudescent totalitarianism when they see it.  Sadly the left, remains oblivious to the fact that the world has been down this path before, and yet the advocates of this perverse militant egalitarianism continue to march on,  led on by Obama's legions of jackbooted apparatchiks.

For Barack Obama, now refusing to lay down his sword,  alea iacta est.   Bolstered by his own unbridled narcissism, Obama now wields his sword with a religious fervour against the rest of the world in the belief that "from the ashes will rise the phoenix of a new spirit" of egalitarianism not only in America but throughout the world. Obama's belief is nothing more than an illusion, for it's only in mythology that a sword can cut through Gordian knots.


Feb 5, 2014

America's Homosexual Jingoism

Imagine in America that as a precondition to receiving your welfare or social security check, the government demanded and forced you to accept homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a normal way of life or imagine that as a precondition to receiving humanitarian aid you were forced to change your religion.

It's an understatement to say that the majority of Americans would be outraged that the government would have the audacity to do such a thing.   Not only is it unethical, but it is unAmerican.

The ethics and morality of conditional aid aside,  there is something morally incongruous, whereas as a nation we stand for freedom of thought and expression on one hand and then on the other would demand apostasy in return for us granting humanitarian aid or assistance.

It's something that simply can't happen, not in America.

But it is happening and to paraphrase Amon Goeth, "it's policy now".  America's foreign policy.

Foreign aid money is now linked to a nation's acceptance of homosexual rights.  Countries that kowtow to this cultural imperialism and embrace the homosexual lifestyle by accepting same-sex marriage and all that comes with it will be put on the "good list" and will be eligible for humanitarian aid and support.  Those countries that stubbornly refuse to submit to this promiscuous iconoclasm and apostate themselves will be "dealt with" accordingly and will face being denied humanitarian aid.

To summarize that for the millennials .... In an act of cultural terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama a closet fanboi of Bushisms gives the world a good fisting.  "Hey, you're either with us or against us!"

In what Russia's President Vladamir Putin accurately describes as "homosexual propaganda", millions of dollars in United States taxpayer monies are now being spent annually proselytizing the homosexual agenda and same-sex marriage overseas.  Your tax dollars are hard at work paying for gay-themed parties and contests offering expensive gifts like iPad minis to overseas homosexuals.  Incidentally expensive gifts like an iPad mini might serve as a recruitment tool for some poor kid overseas who is confused about his sexuality.  United States embassies and government agencies overseas are urging homosexuals to come out and be confrontational by "promoting self-affirmation, visibility as a social group, and celebrating diversity"  While this confrontational  "in your face" behavior can be seen as instigating the citizens of another country to engage in behavior that can be interpreted as either seditious or crimes of moral turpitude.

Needless to say, the chief obstacles to this policy are the ardent religious beliefs, convictions and traditions of over four billion people throughout the world.  What the Taliban in Bamiyan could never completely destroy with dynamite, the United States and Barack Obama are now determined to destroy with policy.

No one could have ever expected that the day would come when Uncle Sam who once stood as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world would disturbingly morph into the Grand Inquisitor, but then again no one ever expected the American Inquisition.

In a presidential memorandum President Barack Obama, appropriating the language of human rights, states that  "no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere."

Exactly what those rights are has left much of the world's intelligentsia befuddled.  Attempting to make clear in what can best be described as State Department sophistry Hillary Clinton compared the struggle for gay rights to women's rights and racial equality, and said a country's cultural or religious traditions are no excuse for discrimination, "gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights".

The fallacy in this statement should be self-evident, gay rights and human rights simply can't be conflated.  We all have human rights simply by virtue of us being human, without distinction to one's race, color, creed or sexual proclivities. One is founded in the tenets of moral objectivism and the other moral subjectivism, it's antithesis.  The mere juxtaposition of the two words exposes not only the antithetical nature that exists but the clear understanding that one cannot be promoted without the expense of the other, logic would therefore dictate that gay rights can only be promoted at the expense of human rights.

Before I get to the point of how gay rights have been promoted at the expense of human rights and how the promotion of gay rights inevitably leads to the decline of freedom, it is important to note that homosexuals around the world already have equal rights which are clearly enshrined in the United Nations declaration of human rights.   With regards to marriage, one of the principle complaints of the gays rights movement, is that gays are denied the right to marriage.  This simply isn't true.   The reality is that a homosexual man or woman for that matter, has every right to get married if they choose to do so.  Just not to someone of the same sex.  There is nothing discriminatory here, a homosexual has no more rights and no less rights than a heterosexual with regards to marriage.  By the same token, sibling marriage or getting married to one of your parents is prohibited.  Does a father and daughter who love each other have a right to get married?

Being desirous of certain course of action or simply wanting to do something does not make it a right and certainly not something that requires support at the state level.

"No country should deny people their rights because of who they love...[sic]"  - Is is arrogant sophomoric statements of policy such as this which open up Messieurs Obama and Clinton to derision and disdain abroad and bring shame to our country.

God Help Us.   


Creative Commons License