Obama, Religion, Ideology, and Deception
The Presidency and religion is something the American voter has been wrestling with since the 1960 Presidential campaign when many questioned whether John F. Kennedy would hold a greater allegiance to the Constitution (the American people) or to the Pope. The question itself showed a complete lack of knowledge of Catholicism.
His Holiness the Pope, in this case John XXIII, had no direct influence over the political inter-workings of any nation. Popes by definition are the successors of Peter (Christ’s right hand man so to speak) and not a politician or king. Allegiance to the Bishop of Rome is limited to the theological teachings within the Church. The degree in which those teachings spill out into public policy is rather subjective depending upon the level of devotion a President has to his chosen faith. A more devout and “conservative” Catholic would subject his policy decisions to the scrutiny of his faith. For example: a devout Catholic as President today would be compelled to seek out a way to strike down Roe v. Wade and limit the cold-blooded murder of the unborn. However, if the person infesting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. happens to be Nancy Pelosi, there isn’t much chance of that happening.
My point is this: when considering the religious beliefs of a potential or sitting President of the United States, it is important to understand what those beliefs are. In the case of John F. Kennedy and Catholicism, there existed no conflict with public policy. Right was right and wrong was wrong. However, when you do not understand the religious beliefs held by the sitting President, there is a conflict. He/she can impose a hidden theological agenda on the nation stealthily and the American people would have no chance to defend the nation against that agenda.
With regard to Barack Obama, nearly 25% of this nation believes he hasn’t been honest in declaring his religious preference. Many will say that he has declared himself to be a Christian, but his actions do not seem to mirror that declaration. He has made speeches apologizing for “America’s arrogance” in the Muslim world. He has, on at least one occasion while in Saudi Arabia, quoted many verses of the Qu’ran calling it “the Holy Qu’ran”. In contrast, he has mocked the Holy Bible on many occasions. He has told an American reporter in an interview that he sees Jesus as a “man of history”. What?!? No Christian of any true Christian denomination would EVER refer to the Son of God as a “man of history”. Strike one against the claims of Christianity.
Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 25 years. He has claimed to have been baptized in that church. What does that mean?
Trinity United Church of Christ is led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Rev. Wright is a teacher of Black Liberation Theology which is a hybrid of Liberation Theology which itself has its origins in Latin America and the brain child of Catholic Priests. It has been denounced by the Vatican because it has Marxism as its core. To understand the appeal of this church’s teachings in Obama’s mind you must first understand the man and his history.
From the socialism seeking itinerant upbringing of his mother to his father’s denouncing of his Islamic faith, young Barack Hussein Obama was doomed to a life of confusion. He was abandoned by his father in favor of a graduate degree from Harvard and the goal of returning to Kenya to enter politics. He was then abandoned by his mother as she pursued her career. Young Barack was sent back to his grandparents in Hawaii and exposed to some of the most radical Marxist teachings at the hands of Frank Marshall Davis.
According to Obama, as he wrote in his book Dreams of My Father, he sought out Radicals and Marxists in college. He, like his father, attended Harvard for Graduate School to earn his law degree. I believe that I must remind you that Harvard was the transmission point for Fabian Socialism into academia.
According to Islamic (Sharia) Law, a child born of a Muslim father is Muslim and the faith of the mother is immaterial. Sharia doesn’t recognize conversion from Islam into any other faith. Barack Obama, since he has exhibited a keen knowledge of the Qu’ran, must surely understand this fact and yet he claims he is Christian.
While living in Indonesia, young Barack was registered in public school even though only the children of citizens are eligible to attend. On the registration documentation, his name is listed as Barry Soetoro, son of Lolo Soetoro – a Muslim. Incidentally, young Barry Soetoro’s religion was listed as Islam and yet he claims to be Christian.
At this point, I’m going to divert from religion to eligibility to be President of the United States. Many who claim Obama is ineligible are attempting to make the case on the ambiguity surrounding the place of his birth. Because the matter of the location of his birth seems to be impossible to prove, I say we should concentrate on making the case based on what we know to be true.
- Barack Hussein Obama was registered in public school in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro. Obama does not deny this.
- Indonesia at the time required Indonesian citizenship to attend public school.
- Indonesia at the time did not recognize dual citizenship.
It is my contention that these three facts speak to Obama’s ineligibility alone. To be President of the United States you must be a natural born citizen. Even if we were to stipulate to that fact, it can be, and should be, argued that he was voluntarily expatriated by his mother and step-father when they registered him in public school in Indonesia. As such, if he never applied for citizenship upon his return to the United States he is in fact an illegal alien. If he had applied for citizenship and it was granted, he is no longer an natural born citizen but rather a naturalized citizen and ineligible to serve as President.
Back to my original topic…
If you understand that Barack Obama is the child of a socialist and a marxist, raised in various parts of the world, sought out socialists and radical thought throughout his formative years, it is reasonable to understand why he would adopt such a radical theology when seeking out a church. Trinity United Church of Christ was identified as a stepping stone for black politics in Chicago. After all, Oprah Winfrey attended that same church and an endorsement from her would carry a young politician a long way.
I submit to you, that his “Christian” faith is a sham which he has used as a political tool to get him where he is. Sure he closely identifies with many of that church’s teachings because they conform to his Marxist roots, but that does not make him Christian.
On the topic of Liberation Theology which Black Liberation Theology is based upon, one must understand the reasons why the Catholic Church rejected that teaching…
From Spe Salvi – Encyclical written by Pope Benedict XVI November 30, 2007 -
20. The nineteenth century held fast to its faith in progress as the new form of human hope, and it continued to consider reason and freedom as the guiding stars to be followed along the path of hope. Nevertheless, the increasingly rapid advance of technical development and the industrialization connected with it soon gave rise to an entirely new social situation: there emerged a class of industrial workers and the so-called “industrial proletariat”, whose dreadful living conditions Friedrich Engels described alarmingly in 1845. For his readers, the conclusion is clear: this cannot continue; a change is necessary. Yet the change would shake up and overturn the entire structure of bourgeois society. After the bourgeois revolution of 1789, the time had come for a new, proletarian revolution: progress could not simply continue in small, linear steps. A revolutionary leap was needed. Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation—towards what Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God”. Once the truth of the hereafter had been rejected, it would then be a question of establishing the truth of the here and now. The critique of Heaven is transformed into the critique of earth, the critique of theology into the critique of politics. Progress towards the better, towards the definitively good world, no longer comes simply from science but from politics—from a scientifically conceived politics that recognizes the structure of history and society and thus points out the road towards revolution, towards all-encompassing change. With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution—and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia.
21. Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.
Because Liberation Theology has Marxism at its roots, it is impossible for any Catholic, and by association any Christian, to adhere to such a teaching because it is inherently anti-Christian. Marx wrote that religion is “the opiate of the masses”. Teachers of Liberation Theology are less concerned with the teachings of Christ than those of Marx. This is heresy.
In conclusion, at best Obama is a shadow Muslim. At worst, and what I believe is actually the truth, Obama is a Marxist who wears Christianity as a cloak like all followers of Black Liberation Theology; using his faith as a conduit to achieve the goal of advancing socialism in this country. He has succeeded because those who cast votes for him failed to understand who he was and is.

![[del.icio.us]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Reddit]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)


The US House today released the text of their Death Care Reconciliation bill which assumes the Senates Death Care bill was passed. This is the Slaughter rule in action.

