Well, it’s unfortunate but you are absolutely right in feeling this way.
Why would any U.S. President act in such a way?
The Usurper in chief is doing as he feels is necessary to "restore" America, and it has a lot to do with Reverend Wright and their liberation theology.
Before I delve too far into the inner workings of our Usurper in Chief, let's take a look at what the general context of "Liberation Theology" really is.
"Liberation Theology is presented as the effort to think clearly about the meaning of religious faith in the context of oppression, war, poverty, inequality and environmental destruction, and the effort to live a compassionate, courageous and life-sustaining response to those conditions. Over the past several decades, people inspired by Liberation Theology have sought to give voice to a response that both addresses the needs of those who are injured and oppressed, and also works to change the structures and ongoing processes of injury and oppression (http://liberationtheology.org/)."What does this mean and how will it affect us?
Well, it means that as long as the Usurper in Chief is in office, he is right. Right about the fact that we, America, are no longer a Christian nation. We no longer follow the moral and ethical guidelines that our nation was founded on with the teachings of Christ or Scripturally sound principles.
It means that anyone who was offended, oppressed, belittled or "hated," will find a "social justice" defined by the progressive leftists currently in office.
Conservative values are now under attack. Looking at several recent controversies in the political realm, we can see this. Here's a few examples "liberation theology" will take and twist, and what to expect if the Usurper in Chief had his way.
Since marriage is a controversial issue in recent news, let's look at that. Conservative values propose that marriage shall be between one man and one. Since liberation theology states that the oppressed will have social justice, gay marriage is almost a guarantee under the Obama regime.
Homosexuals will either 1) be able to marry, or 2) convince our government to not recognize ANY marriage and have all marriages recognized as civil unions only.
Liberation theology also explains why the Usurper in Chief has Kevin Jennings as his education czar. Jennings is a proponent of the "gay education" of kindergarten-aged children. This is a type of education program many public schools are adopting which utilizes same-sex couples in text books and educates that homosexuality is an accepted and at times the "better" lifestyle. Parents don't even have the option to opt out of this program.
Due to the Usurper in Chief's liberation theology, this also explains the proposition of the Hate Crimes Bill. This bill allows special protections to individuals who are of a racial or sexual oriented minority. Say a voyeur, flashes your spouse or your child. Of course, you or your spouse might react with a slap or punch. However, while the flasher will receive a state misdemeanor charge, your spouse would receive a federal felony because the flasher was "discriminated" against because of their sexual proclivities.
Liberation theology is why the Usurper in Chief supports every religion but Christianity. The Usurper in Chief actually seems to support Islam over any other religion. If he isn't a Jihadist himself then their feelings of needing to destroy America is "socially justified" somehow, which is why he promotes Islam as his "favored" religion.
The last example of how liberation theology is destroying our nation through the hands of our Usurper in chief, examine the New Black Panther movement. They were taken to court and charged with voter fraud and intimidation. For "some" reason, the Department of Justice dropped the charges, regardless of the fact that they were caught on video threatening voters in Pennsylvania in 2008.
Have you seen other examples this liberation theology being applied to certain "types" of people who claim discrimination being "socially justified" by the Usurper in Chief?
I believe you have.
I read quite a few of your posts. I had problems with the 'forum', so I figured I would just comment here.
ReplyDeleteThere is a myriad of problems in this argument, namely a lot of argumentum ad consequentiam.
The discussion about the Hate Crimes Bill and the proclivities of a flasher is not even realistic. First of all, just because someone is mentally deranged enough to want to show other people their genitals is no reason to inflict harm upon them. It has nothing to do with their status as a minority (and sexual deviance does not make one a minority), and it has everything to do with the percieved threat. If you believe that a flasher is likely to procede into a violating act, then violence could be arguably justified.
There is also selective application of the law in these arguments, such as the gay marriage issue. The Equal Protection Clause states that all American citizens are guaranteed equal rights under the law. The Supremacy Clause states that no state can pass a law to violate this right. The argument for gay marriage is precisely that. The argument against can provide no evidence that gay marriage forces heterosexuals to do anything at all. (So the argument against gay marriage does not pass strict scrutiny.)
The US Constitution is also an egalitarian document, stating that all citizens are legally equal, therefore, the "oppressed" need to be addressed, as they are American citizens.
The instances of the "New Black Panther Party" (which are in no way affiliated with the Black Panther Party) are minor instances, that I actually believe should still be addressed. I also think all of the instances of voter fraud and voter intimidation in 2000 and 2004 should be investigated. Any hindrance to voting is detrimental to democracy and democratic theory.
Finally, the United States was never meant to be a "Christian Nation" according to most of the drafters of the American government. In accordance with the Treaty of Tripoli, the United States has never declared war with Islam.
Regarding the separation of Church and State, even John Adams had stated that he hoped the First Amendment would provide a "wall of separation" against religion and government.
Many of these men were Christians, some were Diests, some were Non-Theistic, but most of them were also humanists, that were inspired by men such as Voltaire to draft a Democratic Republic that allowed for a nation of laws and not theologens or monarchs.
It also really weakens your argument against the "jihadists" and others that wish to harm the United States when you disrespect the elected leaders in such a manner. Why would you want to defend a country that is governed by people that are so contemptuous? And why would you care that people want to do them harm? It makes no sense to debase a government and then condemn those who wish to harm the same government. There is a reason the people in England state: "God Save The Queen."
(And yes, I said the same thing about the previous President, although I was highly critical of him, I never called him anything other than President, while he was in office.)