Obama's greatest appeal and novelty concerns the color of his skin. It was Obama's skin color – and not his achievements – that won him admission into the most selective schools, the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review, the Presidency of the United States and a Nobel Prize. So how does the skin color narrative play into Obama's political philosophy? Are Obama's actions as the president befitting with the principles of liberty that would make the-color-of-skin story a great one?
Disappointingly, the specter of our black President is that of a kingdom divided against itself. By his skin color, Obama is the projection of racial healing and racial emancipation for a nation that failed to uphold unalienable rights to blacks. But by his political philosophy, Barack Obama is an opponent of liberty.
Our guilty white consciences -- and our black fears of failure -- motivated voting for Barack Obama. Twice. For whites, a vote for Barack meant saying "no" to the unalienable rights-denying practice of slavery. For blacks, a vote for Barack meant that painful introspection about fears of failure in the free market can be put off for easy claims of racial oppression and the consequential moral case for dipping into -- or swimming in -- the public trough.
Even the reasons for voting for Barack are a contradiction.
Whites voted for Obama because they wanted to make a psychological statement against racism. Blacks voted for Obama because the appeal of crying "racism" is more attractive than risking the humiliation that can come with trying and failing in the free market. For whites, racism is something to fight against. For blacks, racism is a coveted insurance policy, a protective shield, against participation in the free market and self-reliance.
Even the psychological reason of whites voting for Barack contradicts the cognitive case against voting for Barack's racial preferences and anti-freedom policies. Motivated to uphold unalienable rights, whites voted for Barack who only serves to disrespect these rights.
Obama's blackness invites us to celebrate a closing of a circle, the full emancipation of the black man. But Obama's political objectives revolve around the removal of the unalienable right to both "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" for wealth producers. Obama's likewise fails to defend the unalienable right to "life" for unborn children and victims of a government insurance cooperative death-panel who wish to pursue instead their own health care.
Whether the subject is income tax, entitlements, abortion, gun control, marriage, Islam's immunity from criticism, Islam's compatibility with the principles of The Declaration of Independence, justice for enemy combatants, amnesty for illegals... Obama reliably takes the side against securing our alienable rights.
The central prototypical question Obama's governance invites is, "How can we call the oppression of a black man by a white slave owner 'evil,' but then turn around and call the oppression of a wealth producer by the gun of government 'good'?" This is only a prototypical question because a litany of other contractions immediately swell: "How can we lament the human rights abuses against the black American slave, but then celebrate the human rights abuses against unborn Americans who are also endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights? How can Obama support unalienable rights when he evinces no acknowledgement to the 'self-eviden[cy]' of natural law?...."
In terms of foreign policy, Obama's most emphatic statement, a statement made >100 times, has been, "The U.S. is not, and will never be, at war with Islam." Yet Obama has not dared to put Islam under the lense of criticism that he puts the US and the Bible under. Whereas Islam supports sexual slavery (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24....) and religious apartheid (Koran 9:29), Obama nonethess can see no evil in Islam and is content instead to mischaracterize Old Testament passages in order to demean the Judeo-Christian heritage. How can Obama protect and defend the U. S. Constitution against all enemies, when he is unwilling to morally evaluate Islam? In order to protect Islamic sensititivies, Obama rallied with Egypt against free speech at the U.N. and got a resolution to that end passed. In so doing, Obama threw the First Amendment under the Sharia bus. Obama is against al Qaeda, but at every turn he sides with al Qaeda's parent organization, The Muslim Brotherhood.
If racial privilege is bad for whites, then how can it be a good to mock Constitutionalists and rule-of-law advocates -- chided by Obama as "carnival barkers" -- who want an investigation of Obama's use of a stolen Connecticut social security number or of Obama's forged birth certificate or of Obama's anomalous selective service registration? How can the media's curry of privilege for Obama do anything but patronize blackness for demanding that there be no laws by which we can evaluate a black president? Especially since it has been deliciously revealed that Obama himself was the first "birther" and Michelle the second.
By the media's weltanschauung, a black leftist president, is -- by definition -- good. It is the media's self-appointed task to insure that no possible unfavorable evaluation of Obama take place. Witness the media's excoriation of Sheriff Joe Arpiao's outstanding investigation into the aforementioned Obama identity document findings.
But it is only for retarded people that such low standards of evaluation are appropriate.
So the media have thus made Obama and his presidency special. As in special Olympics. Thus the media's protective treatment of Barack only insults and demeans black people.
Because Obama is such a contradiction, he can never willingly comply with full disclosure and defense of his identity documents. Whereas Obama campaigned under full disclosure for government, he has governed under very little disclosure and has produced almost no disclosure of his identity records, citizenship, political circles and political identity. Once suspects that Barack's last name is legally "Soetoro" and not "Obama."
Jack Cashill tells us that we know more about the first President's first two years of life than we know about Barack Obama's first two years of life.
Even Obama's autobiography reveals powerful contradictions. Despite Obama's claims to the contrary, the autobiography is not primarily written by Obama, but by Obama's unrepentant terrorist and fellow traveler friend, Bill Ayers. Further the audio version of Dreams (read by Obama) removes all references to one of the most influential and frequently appearing individuals named in the written version: Pornographer and card-carrying Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Yet how many Democrats are aware of this scrubbing of Obama's narrative?
Barack Obama is for black racial preferences (mislabeled by those on the left and right as "affirmative action"), but then refuses to defend the race-based preferences he received which won his entrance and scholarships to Ivy League institutions. By withholding even the release of his grades -- let alone the release of his college applications which apparently reveal that Obama was a foreign national and thus ineligible for the office of the presidency -- Obama fails to defend his beloved black racial preferences. If it was a good to give Obama admission privileges over whites, how can it be a bad to show the extent of these privileges? One should not be ashamed to proclaim what is virtuous.
Of course "affirmative action" is not "affirmative." It is negative, discriminatory, ugly and oppressive. And that of course is the real reason why Obama does not reveal even his academic scores.
The hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus is unveiled by the claim that were Barack white, blacks would have marched on the White House to protest the disparate effects racial impact of his economic policies. Black political hypocrisy was further unveiled when voting districts in inner city Philadelphia tallied over 19,000 votes for Barack and none for Mitt. Such fealty to their oppressor is beyond dysfunctional. It is truly sickening.
Surely Obama understands much of his hypocrisy. Commenting about his Secretary of Energy, Obama said, "[Chu] actually deserved his Nobel prize." But then denial returns and Obama talks about business developers not building their businesses. Even Obama's Roanoke, Virginia remark drips with the "You couldn't have built it because I didn't earn it" psychological coping mechanism organic to the politics of making blacks and the poor economic slave masters over the rest of the population.
Obama incarnates the self-destructive biblical metaphor of "a kingdom divided against itself." He is utterly incoherent. Obama is superficially against racism, but promotes racism against whites and is creating more economic disadvantages for blacks. If there is any coherency to understanding Obama, it is that he is consistently against securing the American's unalienable rights.
Dr. Pieder Beeli has a Ph. D. in Physics, is a new creation antinomian (Christian) pastor, the proud father of five beautiful home-schooled children and the founder of the Facebook group, The Audacity of Fraud: America's First Photoshop President. He has written articles for WND, The American Thinker, Tea Party Nation and The Post and Email.