By Supporting Barack Obama, Some Black People are Putting their Egos Above What's Best

My friend, Rich Siegel, wrote the following:

So many of my friends are SO IN LOVE with Obama after the speech in Tucson. A eulogy for a 9 year old girl tragically killed in Arizona, while how many other nameless 9 year olds- and babies and toddlers and children of every age are killed in Iraq, Afghanistan [corrected], Pakistan, Palestine, Yemen, etc., by Bush-lite Obama and the corporate/Zionist empire machine?

A bit earlier, I had tweeted (posted on Twitter) the following: "I watched Barack Obama speaking in Tucson saying many right things. I thought too about the value of lives lost to bombs he's authorized."

So, Rich and I came to the same conclusion independently.

What's up with people lauding Barack Obama while he continues the War Party politics? The War Party, by the way, means both the Republican and Democratic parties, as they both go to war almost at the drop of a hat. It's Big Business, and the business of America is business, said the once head of General Motors I believe.

Here's an article that expresses Black people (some) being so thrilled with having a half-Black President that they put aside all of their usual anti-imperialism. Abandon Obama At Your Peril, Blacks Tell Angry Liberals : It's All Politics : NPR.

I find that tendency to be extremely selfish. Consider all the non-Black people who voted for Obama not because he is half Black but because they thought (incorrectly) that he would be an antidote to the neoconservatism of George W. Bush and all the evils that that entails.

Many non-Blacks and I'm sure a fair number of Blacks who voted for Obama have come to the clear realization that Barack Obama is largely a neocon, a Zionist, and a creature of many locales certainly including Wall Street.

The following video does an excellent job of stating much of this. The video description is "Glen Ford: President Obama is more concerned with pleasing Wall Street [spelled out] than appeasing public opinion."

Really, the Black people who ordinarily want anti-imperialist, anti-Zionists, anti-Wall Street Firsters, need to come back to their roots. Barack Obama is not in their mold at all. They would be vastly better off with a non-Black President or a different Black President who isn't an imperialist, Zionist, Wall Streeter who simply tried on many hats growing up so he could "appeal" across-the-board while literally duping many Blacks.

Who doesn't know that despite Dennis Kucinich's caving on the public option and single-payer healthcare, even though the majority of Americans were clearly polling in favor of single-payer, thanks in no small measure to Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary, that Dennis would have been a much better healer than Barack Obama? Who doesn't no that Bernie Sanders would not be relatively better than Barack Obama by reason of heart and compassion and not being a sellout?

I'm not a Ron Paul "fan," per se, but I like much of what I hear regarding foreign policy. I disagree with him on laissez-faire/neoclassical economics, of course, but at least he doesn't want to coerce the world by violence. Kucinich, Sanders, and Paul are not pacifist to my knowledge. I am though, so they are not my choices for leader. I'm not "endorsing" them. I am simply making comparisons.

Bernie is Zionist to some extent. I don't know just how far he'd be prepared to go to "defend" the Zionist Project. Dennis is not a Zionist and neither is Ron.

Why though do the American people not understand that the top Wall Streeters are not "patriots"? They really don't give a damn about Americans, as Americans include poor Americans who are poor often because they have been unwilling to be evil. There is no such thing as a billionaire without a very selfish, hence evil, streak. Who doesn't know that?

The Ron Paul followers allow their individualist ideology to be used by the greedy of Wall Street and other such profit centers. They don't seem to appreciate the collectivization inherent in monopoly capitalism. John D. Rockefeller, arguably the richest man in the world at the time at least publicly (I happen to believe there were bankers, including the Rothschilds, with larger secret wealth), said competition is evil. Well, he was right but for the wrong reason. He was using a Christian principle to support his privately monopolizing the oil industry by both horizontal and vertical integration and agreements in restraint of trade and such.

We have people running around who have never studied the matter themselves but who are simply parroting incorrect statements such as that the US is not a democracy but rather a republic. The United States is a republic in that it has a president rather than monarch. It is though also a limited and representational democracy and has been since the ratification of the current constitution and in many respects before that. What it is not is a pure and direct democracy. The vast majority of people who call the US a democracy are not saying that it is pure and direct. Pure here means the people would vote up or down on every issue, and direct means they would do that not through any representative but rather directly.

There is pure, direct democracy on certain levels within the US. Many organizations are formed on the pure and direct form of democracy.

The fear of pure and direct concerns what is termed the tyranny of the majority. Majorities in pure and direct democracies have been known to tyrannize the minority.

The anarchists are the extreme opposite and are individualists. They want no one coercing them, albeit a number of them are violently coercive themselves to fight back as they see it.

When you combine laissez-faire ("let-do") and capitalism, you have anarcho-capitalism or a supposed self-regulating, self-correcting, self-balancing marketplace. This theory is a license to private monopoly, which is totalitarian monarchy vested in the richest person who ends up literally owning everything. This is because capitalism is inherently selfish; otherwise, it would be sharing ownership of everything — it's direct opposite.

Christianity is capitalism's direct opposite. That's why capitalists hate Christianity. They twist Jesus's teachings and ignore them in whatever way they can to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that Jesus was and remains a non-coercive communist. Capitalism is anti-Christ and so is Marxism.

There was no market "invisible hand" that stopped Rockefeller. Trust busting stopped Rockefeller. Democracy stopped the monopolization in private hands by one man, who was generally despised until after he hired a public relations firm to remake his image, much as Bill Gates has done, in spite of the fact that Bill Gates still benefits via stocks in the solutions he pushes via his "philanthropy". Consider the drug company profits if Bill's "scientific" and "medical" solutions are widely employed. Consider the stock values and dividends, etc., of those holding stocks in those companies. It's not altruism on Bill Gate's part, and it wasn't on John D. Rockefeller's (who, interestingly enough, got his start selling quack medicine made from crude oil).

Who are others who are twisting individualism into monopolistic endeavors? Following in their father's John Birch Society footsteps, at least two of the Koch Brothers have been at it all their adult lives. They fund the CATO Institute, which pushes laissez-fair capitalism but is a cover for laissez-faire corporatism and the movement toward monopoly against the general welfare.

They spend huge sums on promoting whatever will benefit them while the getting is "good" (before they die).

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matthew 13:24-30)

So, what is best, and does Barack Obama represent that? Should Black people be supporting Barack Obama simply because he's half Black rather than seeking the best shepherd regardless of ethnicity?

It is clear to me and was from the moment I first heard Barack Obama that he was far, far, far from the best choice. I considered him a phony and still do. I say that with cause.

If you want to read how to spin yourself, here's a masterpiece: "The Price of Immortality."

By the by, "The ransom of a man's life are his riches: but the poor heareth not rebuke." (Proverbs 13:8) That's a deeper statement then appears on the surface. Reflect upon each word. It's not just about mammon (money).

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. (Matthew 19:30)

You need to understand that he's robbing Peter to give away pocket change to Paul all the while claiming he's doing good works for God.

Koch Industries has had numerous legal scraps over the years. In 2000, the company was indicted on 97 counts of environmental violations at a refinery in Texas. (After George W. Bush took office, 90 of the counts were dropped, and the company pleaded guilty to one count of falsifying a document.)

Ha, yes, that's thinking about your fellow man. When things go wrong with the rich, they give mostly to whatever organization is working on fixing that problem. Think about that. let me know the next time some billionaire comes down with cancer but gives it all to the real Environmental Movement. I'll be favorably impressed.

United States Notes

In the meantime and as only a quick stepping stone to a moneyless society, let's have interest-free and debt-free United States Notes. We can nationalize the Federal Reserve overnight. We can declare all Federal Reserve Notes to be interest-free and debt-free. Let's pay off that idiotic National Debt instantly. Let us have full public employment doing real work to clean up and take care and so all the people may be fed and housed, etc. now! The supply in circulation and savings of United States Notes can be controlled with such excellent precision so as to avoid all inflation and deflation. The supply can perfectly match the growth in the economy we want. There is no limit. Arriving there though, we can transition to a moneyless, classless society that will be free of poverty and be environmentally wholesome. Only sociopathic thinking is holding us back. Change that. Everyone, even the richest of the rich in mammon will gain a better quality of life. They just need to stop working for self and start working to everyone (they'll still be included in that).

How can we leave millions homeless and hungry for wholesome food when there are billionaires giving to the Opera House and such and being held up so high for it? It's obscene. It's evil. It's American.

Let's change what the world thinks of when it says "American." Let us have it be a real Shining City on the Hill rather than a fake of the Ronald Reagan kind. Let's have it be where Jesus smiles about it. Then I'll be favorably impressed. Then I'll be a "patriot." Then I'll believe in God and country as one.

Peace and truth are the same thing. Give me both, and there won't be divine retribution or righteous indignation. All will be saved. All hearts will be right.

Let's translate the mammon into the Christian Commons where there will be no charge for coming to the table.

"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1)

Again, it's not just about mammon (money).

Understand though the words of James the brother of Jesus Christ.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:14-17)

So you see, it is also about seeing after the fleshly needs of our fellow human beings. Anything less is dead where "dead" there means no eternal life in righteousness rather than damnation (even if only for a season). Repent.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.