In this week’s inauguration ceremony, the words “one nation under God” were omitted when words from the Pledge of Allegiance were recited during the prayer. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive, did not use those words when taking the oath of office during his inauguration.
Although the original pledge did not have those words, the United States flag code was amended in 1954 was by a joint effort in Congress. Some have challenged the phrase on the grounds that it violates the separation between church and state. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District and the Supreme Court has let stand that ruling.
People have been wondering why the administration is so willing to anger so many potential voters to his cause. Catholics, particularly Irish and Hispanic Catholics, have always been a big voting bloc for the Democratic party.
What is at stake for Obama is the fundamental reason for his personal agenda — the belief that the state is responsible for the lives of Americans, not the individuals themselves, and that our rights are derived from rule of law, rather than being inherent in man from God.
Everything — and I do mean everything — that Obama represents, from his socialistic ideas to his core belief in the authority of government, is represented in this argument. These are reminders to the audience that he continues to promote the idea the world should begin to revolve around the theory of statism.
Ultimately, in a police state or leftist state, authoritarianism is the end result. This is where people are held accountable but not responsible for their actions. People get sent to jail for crimes, but are labeled as mentally ill or deficient in some other way, and thus the state decides rights. In a free society, the reverse is true, where people are responsible for themselves and any crimes they commit, but enforcement is thin, as forgiveness is the order of the day. Minor things like throwing a football on the beach are no longer crimes and a sports player that is injured on the field is an assumed risk in an ordinary individualistic society. An authoritarian state, instead, enjoys the power of deciding who is accountable and removes responsibility and places it in the hands of government in an effort to destroy individuality.
One of the aspects of leftist thought is the replacement of God and religion in everyone’s lives with the worship of the state, known as “statism.” In order for the ideal of a leftist state to take hold in society, it has to replace the traditional institutions of God and religion with the all-encompassing state. A man or woman who believes in salvation and charity has no need for a powerful state; they are self-sufficient. The leftist has that need; they want the state to protect them from harm, to support them in old age or poverty, to provide their charitable interests with social programs. To that end, it requires that others are the same way: reliant entirely upon the all-powerful state.
Statism seeks to reverse the basic understanding that rights are inherent in man. No one is responsible any more for anything.
Everything is a state matter — they know best — and this is how they derive power. If you need health care, look to the state. If you need a job, look to the state. If you are poor or hungry, get your money or food from the state. By doing so, you make the state the arbiter of your life and therefore transfer power via the decision-making process.
One of the greatest threats to statism are the ideas of religion (and in particular Christianity) since religion often argues that all men are equal under the eyes of God rather than the state. It was one of the primary reasons Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire thousands of years ago. He represented a dire threat to the dictatorial authority of the Roman Empire which was based on statism, classes and inequality. Jesus’ message was that all men are equal from God, not the state, and thus the Emperor was no different from the peasant and all men should be treated equally and fairly.
Law, and responsibility for one’s own action, is thus is an individual matter, not a state one, and accountability in the end is dispensed by God rather than Man.
If the Obama administration backs down on these subtle cues, he is essentially saying that it’s ok that some people should be responsible for their own lifestyle choices. As a result, other groups could also make a similar argument about everything from contraception to diet to work. He would be allowing, in essence, people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. If he bends to that argument, he would invalidate everything that he has worked for over the last four years. Backing down would undermine all that he stands for.
The American people can see through this charlatan disguise, however. He is a ‘rainmaker’ president — a modern-day Starbuck for the masses — seeking adulation over substance, substituting the glitter of the big top for the bedrock of leadership that traditionally comes from the White House, and using these subtle hints to get his message of statism across.
It is the old argument of statism and oppression. This is not merely about a nanny state rule. His omission in the pledge is about freedom as defined under the Constitution and about our rights being inherent in man and God, rather than as defined by a dictator.
Tyranny is established in this way.
Free subscription; unsubscribe any time. Connect with conservative, alternative media — we are “rendering the mainstream media useless” at TheBrennerBrief.com!
- ‘God’ Mostly Missing in Obama’s Inaugural Invocation–Delivered by Laywoman (gloucestercitynews.net)
- Obama uses inauguration to spotlight policy pledges (sacbee.com)
- Inauguration 2013: President Barack Obama [VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT] (oldschool945.com)
- President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address (blogs.wsj.com)
- Inaugurating President Chamberlain (nationalreview.com)