___________________________________
The reader glancing at the title above will be forgiven if he thinks that___________________________________
the writer mistakenly believes that John McCain won the presidential race. Indeed, this probably would be the title of some pundit’s essay if John McCain had won the election. Certainly there are many this day who think that the election of Barack Obama is the realization of that very dream. But just the opposite is the case. In a perverse way the election of Barack Obama marks the death of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, rather than its realization.
What was that dream? It consisted of many things, but it boiled down to this: “I have a dream that my . . . children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
On November 4, 2008 we saw a nation which judged a man more by the color of his skin than by the content of his character.
There were those who were going to vote for any liberal Democratic candidate that the party would put up. These are not the voters of concern. There were many others who weren’t so predisposed. What about them?
We saw a population with skin colored black, who voted for a man with skin colored black in unprecedented numbers. This included many men and women who claimed to be conservatives, but who left off any confidence they had in ideas and voted for an extremely liberal man based on the color of his skin. The more honest among them admitted that skin color was the basis upon which they were voting. In this was exhibited a spirit of tribalism and clan adherence of the highest order.
We saw a population with skin colored white, who suffering long under the “white man’s burden,” voted for a man with skin colored black. Their burden has been the guilt they have felt for the past sins of those with white skin color, which were committed against those in the past with black skin color. Instead of feeling guilty for their own sins they have found it more convenient to feel guilty for the sins of those who went before them. It is Biblical to acknowledge and confess the sins of our fathers, and even to acknowledge that those sins can affect the children. But the guilt of those sins belongs solely to those who committed them, not their descendants.
Nonetheless, many suffering under this false “white man’s burden” were giddy to salve their consciences by voting for a man with black skin color. They were eager to do penance and demonstrate that they aren’t racist. They were willingly to overlook glaring character flaws to make this point by their vote.
In each of these instances, the black man in a show of clan support, and the white man seeking to absolve his guilty conscience, the voters were judging by skin color.
On the other hand, we can see that this great mass of voters couldn’t have been judging him by the content of his character. For the content of his character is unknown and questionable at best, or objectionable and wicked at worst.
From time immemorial it has been universally acknowledged that a man is known by the company he keeps. Let us look at the company Obama has kept.
First up: Jeremiah Wright. A man who preaches black liberation theology, which embodies a hatred of whites (judging them by their skin color) and wraps Marxism in theological language. In Jeremiah Wright’s case this theology also encompassed anti-Semitism. Obama sat under this preacher for 20 years. He chose to have his children baptized by this man. He chose to have his children hear this preacher Sunday after Sunday. What is the character of a man who so willingly exposes his family to a man who judges others on the color of their skin? Who rails against Jews? Finally, when the radicalness of this man’s ideas became undeniable Obama said he didn’t know that this man believed or taught these things. Either Obama pays so little attention to his surroundings (for 20 years!) that he isn’t fit to lead a dog down the street, or he is lying. Nobody believes the former, so it must be the latter. Then when the pressure became overbearing, he disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, revealing expedience as his modus operandi.
Next up: William Ayers. A man who was involved in the bombings of the Pentagon, a police station and the private home of a judge. One who has never apologized or repented for these domestic terrorist actions and who even recently expressed regret that he didn’t do more. A man who dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassinator of Robert Kennedy. Barack Obama sat on a board with this man, started his political career in this man’s living room, and endorsed one of his books. When initially asked about the relationship, Obama said he was just a “guy in the neighborhood” that he knew. When the pressure became more intense, he then said that Ayers had done these things when he, Barack Obama, was 8 years old. Further, he said he was working with Ayers on educational projects, on which he agreed with Ayers. What is the content of the character of a man who overlooks such heinous acts, never repented of, because he admires a man for his educational ideas? This is similar to a man becoming friendly with a Nazi concentration camp guard, who after a day of beating and killing prisoners, comes home, pats his dog on the head, hugs his children and kisses his wife. When asked why one would have a friendly relationship with such a monster the man replies, “He’s such a wonderful family man!”
How about Rashid Khalidi? Tony Rezko? The list could go on. . .
Obama is a man who has espoused policies that entail taking the private property of one man to give it to another man. This is stealing, whether done at gun-point or by the power of government. What is the character of a man who would use his power to take what belongs to one man and give it to another?
Perhaps the truest test of a man’s character is the way he treats his family and those who are most vulnerable within his sphere of influence.
While Obama raked in millions of dollars he gave away only 1% of his income before he decided to run for president. Meanwhile, his half brother continues to live in squalor in Kenya, subsisting on one dollar a month. No help has come from Obama.
Planned Parenthood concentrates its abortion clinics in minority communities and a black woman who is pregnant is 3 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman who is pregnant, a situation that Jesse Jackson once rightfully called “black genocide.” Yet Obama has praised Planned Parenthood and pledged to them radical pro-abortion actions on his part as president.
When Obama had a chance to vote in Illinois to ensure that infants born alive during a late abortion attempt would be treated with the same care as any other infant, he was the sole state senator to speak out against the bill. This same bill, virtually word for word, passed unanimously in the United States Senate, by liberals and conservatives alike. No one else was cold-hearted enough to speak out against the care of a living, breathing human being, outside the womb. What is the content of the character of a man who sets himself so markedly against the most vulnerable charges within his care as a state senator?
Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., says, “For those who suggest that Barack Obama advances the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I say look again. His politics are anathema to the dream!”
It is no small irony that a black man who has absolutely no connection, familial or otherwise, to American slavery, is seen by many as a savior who will lead us to the Promised Land. But everything about his choice of comrades, his words and his prior actions suggest that he is a collectivist who will instead lead us into a new slavery to the State. Unfortunately, Dr. King’s dream must remain in the ether, for we cannot yet together rightfully sing, “Free at last.”
Thanks Nate!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment