Barack Hussein Obama Imitating King Henry VIII in Practice

Barack Hussein Obama Imitating King Henry VIII in Practice

The Alienator-in-Chief
By J.T. Hatter
October 16, 2012

Friends and Enemies

It is impossible to be the leader of any large enterprise and not alienate someone, but Barack Obama has managed to alienate virtually everyone who has had anything to do with him. Who has Barack Hussein Obama not alienated in the last four years?

Barack Obama has alienated Great Britain, our closest military ally, both with insults and official actions. He  betrayed the Brits by failing to support them over the Falklands and by revealing their nuclear military secrets to the Russians. Obama has singlehandedly destroyed our "special relationship" with the UK.

The United States had been Israel's staunchest ally since the founding of that nation in 1948. No more. Obama sides with the Palestinians and openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood. He sent two and a half billion dollars to the new Muslim Brotherhood  governrment in Egypt just this year. Obama has repeatedly snubbed and insulted Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has vetoed a preemptive attack on Iran to halt their clandestine nuclear weapons program. The Israelis no longer trust the Americans. Who can blame them?

As soon as Obama took office, he went on a whirlwind tour of the world. It turned out to be a personal mission to insult America's traditional allies and encourage and ingratiate himself to America's enemies -- especially to the radical Islamists. Obama has reversed the entire course of American foreign policy, much to the detriment of freedom, liberty, and stability in the world at large. After four years of inept and counterproductive Obama foreign policy, the world is on the brink of economic ruin, warfare, and chaos.

Got Racism?

No politician in American history has gotten more mileage out of racial demagoguery than our "post-racial" president, Barack Obama. But it has cost him. White Americans are sick and tired of being tagged as racist for merely disagreeing with his progressive agenda. Ann Coulter's new book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama details Obama's efforts to push "...the Left's agenda to patronize blacks and lie to everyone else." Obama is a master at both patronizing and lying. Dinesh D'Souza also dealt with Obama's talent for successfully gaming America's racial dynamic in his documentary Obama's America 2016: Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him.

Obama has an uncanny ability to use the racial sensitivities of white people to his advantage. He got himself elected president by preying on white guilt and voicing an endless, mesmerizing stream of feel-good hope and change rhetoric that promised a post-racial America under his stewardship. Instead, he has done more damage to race relations since George Wallace and Bull Connor, both segregationist Democrats. Glenn Beck expressed the views of many Americans when he said on Fox News, "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over again and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don't know what it is... I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

It can be hard to figure out the chameleon-like Obama. He talks a good game, but underneath you know he's up to something else entirely different from what he's saying, and it's not good. Obama reveals himself in his past speeches and associations, and in his twenty-year attendance at the Trinity United Church, whose pastor Jeremiah Wright espoused black liberation theology from the pulpit, telling his congregation, "God Bless America? "Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That's in the Bible." We know Obama from his public embrace of racist law professor Derrick Bell at Harvard, his refusal to prosecute baton-wielding Black Panthers who intimidated white voters, and from the direction of his current policies.

Amid all this. he has alienated an awful lot of people, especially those of us who believe that all men are created equal and stand equal before God. Race relations in this country are worse now than they've been since the 1960's. Instead of a nation governed by equality, mutual respect, and brotherly love we are a nation torn apart.

Shoving Granny Off the Cliff

Obama has thoroughly alienated those seniors intelligent enough to realize what he has done to them. He promised that the federal government would respect and support them, but the veils have been lifted from the abstruse, unread ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi was right -- we did have to pass the law in order to find out what was in it. And now we know that seniors were sacrificed as the first fruits on the altar of ObamaCare. They are going to lose the most and suffer the most because ObamaCare defunds Medicare, places special taxes on their investment income, medications, medical devices, and premium insurance plans; and debilitates and destroys the Medicare Advantage program. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will be driven out of business. Those who serve the elderly will be among the first to go. Obama is on record as personally arguing for less health care for seniors and yes, the IPAB is a death panel.

Alienating the Entire Political Spectrum

Obama ran on a platform of bipartisan unity. That was never his intention. There has been no bipartisan unity since he took office. Even Vice President Joe Biden (Jackass Joe), in his recent debate with Paul Ryan, made it quite clear there was going to be no bipartisan cooperation between the Obama administration and the Republicans. Not on the agenda. ObamaCare, for example, was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote. Obama created a historical landmark of political alienation with that one.

Obama has alienated the nation's patriots. There is no question that Obama's primary goal is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state. He has said so many times and made his aims clear in his speech to the nation at Osawatomie, Kansas on December 6, 2011. In that speech he said that capitalism didn't work and had never worked, and declared, "'s not as if we haven't tried this theory."

Capitalism and free enterprise a theory? It is the economic dynamic that made America the most prosperous nation in the world -- until it was crushed under the weight of socialist government regulation, taxes and spending. But capitalism is not the socialist economic model. It is the antithesis of it. At Osawatomie, Obama shook his finger in America's face and declared a radical new transformation of the American socioeconomic system -- to a big government, statist, social democracy, along the European model. Obama is the first anti-American President.

Obama has alienated everyone who believes that the USA had better get its fiscal house in order while we still can. The U.S. Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years, despite that being a Constitutional requirement. The President's own annual budget sports a trillion-dollar deficit -- the fourth in a row. He has no intention of delivering a balanced budget or returning the USA to fiscal sanity. That much is obvious to everyone.

Even libs in the entertainment industry are beginning to realize that it's too dangerous to let Obama have another term. Lindsey Lohan has endorsed Romney. Piers Morgan of CNN wrote about Romney that, "He's one of the least principled politicians I've met. But I believe Mitt Romney might just save America." About Obama he wrote,

"The great messianic tidal wave of optimism Obama swept in on has been replaced by harsh reality. He promised Americans tremendous 'hope' and 'change' and, frankly, they don't feel he's given them much hope, or changed very much."

Throwing Christians Under the Bus

Obama has repeatedly slapped religious believers in the face with his unconstitutional and reprehensible positions on the Defense of Marriage Act, gays in the military, abortion, and the ObamaCare requirement that religious hospitals and institutions provide birth control and abortifacients to those enrolled in their health-care plans. He has carefully excised references to God from his speeches and references to our founding documents.

Bishop E.W. Jackson, a black pastor and bishop, is exhorting black Christians to leave the Democratic Party, because they tossed God out of the party platform in Charlotte, and because Barack Obama's personal and political views are in direct opposition to Christian belief and doctrine.

Obama has been called the most biblically hostile President in United States history. His speeches are peppered with remarks disrespectful to Christians, saying they "cling to guns or religion" or express "antipathy to people who aren't like them." Obama has declined to host services for National Prayer Day. Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican in 2009, all of whom were summarily rejected. How offensive can you get? Obama and his Department of State contemptuously impose the administrations' pro-homosexual agenda on other countries whose religious beliefs define homosexuality as a sin and abomination. Obama has enacted hundreds of public policies that are anti-Christian. If Obama has a prayer for re-election, it isn't with the Christians.

Hopenchange or Hype and Chains?

Obama has alienated his supporters, the people who voted for him, who contributed to his campaign, and who feverishly worked to get him elected. Obama has betrayed them all. Those who believed that he was going to be a unifier and could improve their lot now realize that Obama is nothing but an empty chair, a con man, a Marxist in disguise. He offers them nothing but government dependency, the statist form of slavery. No hope. No change. They're better off with Republicans, who offer a chance for true equality, and a job.

Obama has alienated about half the members of the Democratic Party. That once proud and responsible political party has degenerated under Obama into America's de-facto socialist party. The Democratic Party's policies are so radically anti-American, anti-white, anti-family, and anti-God, that those hard-working, responsible Democrats left in the party can only despair at what he has done to them. If you are a Democrat, you are a socialist. That is disgraceful.

No patriotic American can support the Democratic Party. No Christian can support the Democratic Party. That any Jews continue to support the Democratic Party is no less than astonishing. Hindus and Buddhists understand that they have no future in a socialist America. The only major religion that has any reason to support the Democratic Party is Islam.

Obama is going to lose the upcoming election because he has alienated virtually every American who works hard, plays by the rules, and believes in the American promise. All that are left to him a fev like-minded progressives, atheists, socialists, and Democrats.
The rest of us look forward to November 6.

J.T. Hatter is the author of Lost in Zombieland: The Rise of President Zero, a political satire on the Obama administration.

Do the Church Fathers, the Founding Fathers, and Catholic Saints Really Go Together?

Thoughts on the roots of religious liberty as the Catholic Church's "Fortnight for Freedom" comes to a close.

Timothy Samuel Shah
Christianity Today
July 5, 2012

America's Roman Catholic bishops just completed the "Fortnight for Freedom," a two-week period intended to "support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty." As evangelical and Catholic leaders have spent the past year opposing the Obama administration's so-called contraceptive mandate, the timing, motives, and agenda driving the "Fortnight for Freedom" have prompted widespread commentary. Rather than scrutinizing the Fortnight's agenda, Protestants could examine deeper questions than what took place on the surface.

It's important to consider the Fortnight's placement on the calendar—the significance of the Fortnight's dates, June 21 to July 4—to understand the nature of religious freedom and the relationship between what to some mixes like oil and water: the Christian tradition and American liberty.

It's worth considering whether the church fathers and the founding fathers enjoy a deeper conceptual affinity—precisely around the meaning and foundations of religious freedom—than many people (including perhaps the bishops) have noticed.

A feast of martyrs vs. the Fourth of July

The Fortnight for Freedom began on June 21, marking the vigil of the feasts of Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More. Fisher and More were both executed because they refused to endorse Henry VIII's claimed supremacy over the English church. The vast majority of English nobles and bishops endorsed the supremacy, while Fisher and More stood virtually alone.

Though urged to use mental reservation to endorse the succession while denying its legitimacy in their hearts, the men were convinced that they could not do so without violating their consciences and endangering their salvation. As More declared, I could not meet with the Works of any one Doctor, approved by the Church, that avouch a Layman was, or ever could be the Head of the Church.

Fisher was executed on June 22, 1535, and More was executed on July 6, 1535. In 1970, the Roman Catholic Church declared that they should share the same feast day, so every June 22 More and Fisher are honored as martyrs for the church. They are honored for standing up for a simple idea, though one that has proven consistently controversial and dangerous throughout history: the church cannot be true to itself if it does not enjoy independence from the powers that be.

The other bookend of the Fortnight for Freedom is the Fourth of July, for the obvious reason that this marks Independence Day—the birthday of American liberty. On that date in 1776, of course, the American Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson. If June 22 stands for the right of the church to be independent, July 4 stands for the right of every people to be independent.

It stands for the right of political self-government, and of course the Declaration of Independence roots the right of political self-government in the permanent and universal rights of all human beings.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

June 22 and July 4, then, would seem to have little to do with each other. They represent paradoxes: liturgical vs. the civic, ecclesial independence vs. political self-determination, martyrdom vs. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas More vs. Thomas Jefferson

The symbolic gulf between the two dates widens even further when one considers the great men with which they are most closely associated.

June 22 is mostly remembered as the feast day of Thomas More, who stands for a heroic commitment to the independence of the church. But his heroic commitment to the church's independence can't help but look to modern eyes like an unquestioning if not fanatical devotion to the church's authority. While one expression of More's commitment was a willingness to lay down his life as a martyr, another expression of his commitment was a willingness to make martyrs of others. As Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII, More presided over the execution of six Protestants for heresy. Unlike his modern admirers, More was proud of this feature of his biography, and he notes in his own epitaph that he was "grievous" to "thieves, murderers, and heretics" alike.

There could hardly be a more perfect contrast with Thomas More than Thomas Jefferson, the secular saint so closely associated with the Fourth of July. After all, the Fourth of July became Jefferson's day not only because he was the author of the Declaration of Independence. It was providentially sealed as Jefferson's civic feast day because of the coincidence of his death (along with John Adams's) on July 4, 1826—50 years to the day after the original signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Yet Jefferson was a fierce opponent of the Christian traditionalism for which Thomas More lived and died, famously going so far as to produce a kind of "revised rationalist version" of the New Testament, with all the supernatural bits (including Christ's resurrection) cut out. And he was a proud proponent of a degree of religious freedom that More would probably have found inconceivable. In contrast to More's epitaph, Jefferson's authorship of Virginia's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom is one of only three achievements he had inscribed on his gravestone at Monticello.

What did June 22 have to do with the Fourth of July?

So what does Thomas Jefferson have to do with Thomas More? What does the modern American founding have to do with the pre-modern Christian tradition? What do the self-evident truths on which Jefferson staked his life have to do with the Catholic truths for which More gave his life?

If there is a gulf between June 22 and July 4, perhaps it is the consequence of the radical divide described most memorably by Tertullian, a founding father of Western Christianity: What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic? Our principles come from the Porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord is to be sought in simplicity of heart. … After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research.

What should we make, then, of a "Fortnight for Freedom" campaign so intent on conjoining Jerusalem and Athens, orthodoxy and liberty, the feast day of the martyr and the Fourth of July?

What hath the heretic to do with the church father?

At least one "heretic" begged to differ with Tertullian's judgment that a heretic and the church have nothing in common. Thomas Jefferson thought he had more in common with Tertullian than Tertullian might have thought conceivable.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson offers a series of claims about religion and religious freedom that at first glance would seem to underscore the gulf between pre-modern Christian orthodoxy and modern liberalism: [O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

With this passage, Jefferson not only breaks with the constitutive premises of Christendom. He openly advocates a spirit we associate with secular liberal modernity, in which religious orthodoxy takes a back seat to untrammeled religious liberty. In religious matters, everything is permitted, at least as far as civil authority is concerned. No matter what your heresy may be, whether you believe in "twenty gods, or no god," the "powers of government" must leave you unmolested. So long, of course, as your religion "does me no injury"—with "injury" narrowed to mean only the most tangible harms: "picks my pocket" or "breaks my leg."

It seems clear, in other words, that the heretical spirit of Jefferson could not be more distant from the dogmatic orthodoxy of Tertullian or Thomas More.

Jefferson's debt to Tertullian's pre-modern liberalism

And yet, at the very point where the conceptual worlds of Jefferson and Tertullian might seem a million miles apart and set on opposite trajectories, they suddenly intersect and come into astonishing alignment.

In his copy of his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson placed a single annotation next to the famous passage quoted above, just after the sentence, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

Astoundingly, the annotation is a Latin quotation from Tertullian. In a short letter to the Roman proconsul Scapula, probably written in 212 C.E., the North African church father had written in denunciation of a new wave of Christian persecution.

As one widely used translation of the text quoted by Jefferson puts it: However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us—the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind.

Here the founding father quotes the church father. And he does so because he recognized that more than 1,500 years earlier, the church father had already articulated a radical case for religious liberty—a case that was hardly less radical, hardly less liberal, and hardly less modern than the case Jefferson articulated.

Is religious freedom a concession or indulgence that governments and peoples grant when they are feeling generous? No, because Tertullian insisted that it is a "fundamental human right."

Is religious freedom a matter of the majority tolerating the minority, or a privilege restricted to Christians and true believers? No, Tertullian argued it is "a privilege of nature" that every human being "should worship according to his own convictions."

Does my neighbor's faith so affect me that I have the right and responsibility to coercively interfere with his religious belief and practice? No, Tertullian anticipated the liberal harm principle of John Locke, Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill in arguing that "one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man" and should be left alone.

But doesn't zeal for orthodoxy and love for lost souls require the church to compel agreement with the true faith? No, as Tertullian understood, "It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us."

Freedom is a higher obedience

In the end, a profound underlying kinship binds June 22 with July 4. Of course, between the Christian tradition of Tertullian and More and the Enlightenment rationalism of Jefferson, there will always be a vast gulf concerning the nature, destiny, and highest good of human beings, let alone the nature of God.

Yet they share something profound nonetheless: a higher loyalty sets permanent limits to the powers of government. The truest test of the justice and freedom of any society is how much its government and people respect the fact that all of its members owe their highest obedience to the truth about God as their consciences deliver it, not to the powers that be, whether emperor, king, or democratic majority.

As Tertullian described the defiance of his fellow Christians in the face of Roman persecution: [W]hen challenged to sacrifice, we stand immovable in loyalty to our conscience. … [S]ome people think it madness, that, though we could for the moment sacrifice and go away unhurt, with a mental reservation, we prefer "obstinacy" to safety.
Our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Churchwho conceived the "Fortnight for Freedom" were wise to conjoin June 22 and July 4. Those dates, and all the dates in between, are excellent occasions for remembering that our churches and our nation will be truly free only if we "stand immovable in loyalty to our conscience."

So let us not be afraid to prefer conscientious "obstinacy" to the "safety" of the crowd. The rights and liberties we now defend under the banner of religious freedom are fundamental truths the Christian tradition has cherished from its earliest centuries. And as we persist in defending them against what may well be increasingly unfriendly currents of opinion, let us remember that we follow in the footsteps of the venerable if improbable fraternity of Tertullian, Thomas More, and Thomas Jefferson.

Timothy Samuel Shah isassociate director and scholar in residence of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

Obama's despotism takes switchblade to U.S. Constitution

June 21, 2012
By Kevin Fobbs

Independence Day will be soon upon the nation and the majority of Americans will be celebrating the many freedoms, and tremendous sacrifices our forefathers made to secure those cherished liberties. Yet in less than three and a half years President Obama has not only ransacked those freedoms with his deft Saul Alinsky socialist-minded approach to American democracy, but the president has use all the precision of a switchblade to cut into the very sinew of the American Constitution.

Former Speakers Newt Gingrich who has been very forthright in calling American's attention to the progression of this administration's attempt at undermining the U.S. Constitution has recently stated quite succinctly, that if this " dictatorial action by President Obama is allowed to stand, historians may someday look back on June 15, 2012 as the day the Constitution died."

Think about this for a long hard moment. This president has decided that his "Obamarule" is above the U.S. Congress. He firmly believes that his "Obamarule" should be sheepishly followed by the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama believes that his "Obamarule" is far more legitimate that the U.S. Constitution, because his rule dictates that whatever he feels, is what the American public must adopt and must follow.

The fact that Obama would set parameters on what laws he feels like following and what laws he feels like throwing under the bus is not new to this president who acts like a despot. Yes, that's right despot, as in despotism!

Look it up. Despotism is a form of government where an official like Obama, feels that his form of government is correct and he "rules" it as one single entity that uses absolute power. This rule or more concisely, "Obamarule" cannot and must not stand. Congress has the authority to overrule this despotic maneuver by the Obama administration, and Ohio's John A. Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, must take the cue from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and move immediately to begin congressional action to nullify this subversion of the U.S. Constitution.

The rule of law that safeguards all Americans is what our brave men and women have fought and even died on the field of battle for, and in one swift switchblade move, President Obama has decided that he will decide nearly a million illegal criminals will not have to abide by federal and state laws.

Obama also practiced this same despotic action when he decided in February 2011to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which congress passed in 1996, that barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But the despotic Obamarule did not stop there, because there is more. Last August, 2011, the Obama administration also decided to violate federal law again, by not enforcing deportation rules against non-citizen "spouses" of gay U.S. citizens.

There is a very vile and very sinister pattern and practice afoot here as practiced by this administration that cares far more about the rules of Saul Alinsky's socialist-minded theocracy than the rule of American U.S. Constitutional democracy. Examine several of the rules yourself and you be the judge.

Socialist Saul Alinsky postulated that "The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory." I.e...., Mitt Romney is pulling ahead in national polls, the economy is still in the preverbal recessionary-like toilet and the White House is in full panic mode.

So Obama pulls out of his despotic hat this "Rules for Radicals" maneuver of Alinsky, "You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments." Therefore Obama tells the American public that it is alright to violate the American U.S. Constitution and allow 800,000 plus illegal aliens to evade the law, by imploring, "It's the right thing to do!"

Americans, and congress must do the right thing to do, not just on election day, but right here and right now in all corners of this nation, and demand Articles of Impeachment be drawn up in the congress. Request your state elected officials to adopt official resolutions to support congressional action to set aside this flagrant display of egotistical hubris.

Independence Day in America 2012, must be more than just a celebration of what are country was able to accomplish, but equally important. It must be about what we are willing to stand up for, to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution for our nation's future. Now is the time and July 4th is the date to make our inherent freedoms clear and voices heard throughout this nation. Independence Day, 2012 breathe new life into our U.S. Constitution!