Yes, that’s true – Obama’s spirituality is an adversary of the Torah’s spirituality and therefore is an adversary of the Judeo-Christian spiritual foundation of our country.
The Torah’s spirituality is based on individual freedoms given to all humans by God for continuing creative work which began with the Six Days of Creation. The God-given individual freedoms let each individual follow Heavenly God’s commandments in each-individual interpretation – with or without help of a rabbi. And that is so because God created all humans in His image and likeness.
The Obama’s spirituality is based on a Marxist idea (with a Muslim flavor) of depriving an individual of his individual freedoms for the sake of so-called “communal wellbeing.” Obama’s Marxist spirituality is based on the belief that only human-made god in the form of an authoritative government led by a human dictator is able to properly organize the collective creative work of the humans – individual humans are not able to creatively work together without an authoritative leader-ruler.
To support this statement I am going to use the latest thoughts on this subject of two non-Jewish experts. They are
- Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a decorated former Delta Force commander, U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and Purple Heart recipient, who explained in his video a six-step plan used by revolutionaries to bring about Marxism elsewhere and drew parallels to Obama’s actions in the U.S.
- Kimberley A. Strassel who is a member of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and an assistant editorial features editor for this publication.
Earlier this year, Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin who has battled Marxism around the globe released a video warning that Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and others who have led communist revolutions in their nations.
Boykin’s warning resounds eerily today in particular, as the nation is reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a massive federal overhaul of health care and on the anniversary of Obama’s pledge to establish a “national civilian security force” – two events Boykin warned were markers of a “Marxist insurgency” in other nations.
“We hear a lot about Marxism and socialism, and there are those, particularly in the media, who would say that we should ‘tone down our rhetoric’ about socialism because ‘we’re not moving to socialism,’” Boykin states in the video. “Well, the reality is … I’ve studied Marxist insurgency. It was part of my training. And the things I know that have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.”
Boykin laid out a step-by-step plan he says is the model of how Fidel Castro instituted Marxism in Cuba, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in Russia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela: nationalize major sectors of the economy; redistribute wealth; discredit opposition; censor opposing viewpoints; control gun ownership; and develop a constabulary force to control civilian population.
Boykin then illustrates how each of these steps have begun to materialize in the U.S.: From a form of “nationalization” through government bailouts, to “hate crime” legislation aimed at silencing the pulpits, to the federal government labeling tea partiers and veterans returning from overseas as potential domestic terrorists, to efforts underway to get the U.S. on board with a United Nations small arms treaty, which would regulate private gun ownership.
Boykin takes particular aim at Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he says federal administrators have already admitted is a wealth-redistribution plan and he says includes within its 1,000 pages plans for national security forces at the president’s disposal, akin to national police forces socialist tyrants like Adolf Hitler used to complete their revolutions.
Specifically, Boykin alluded to a speech Obama made four years ago today, in Colorado Springs, Colo., on July 2, 2008, in which he pledged to establish a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the U.S. military].”
“You need to understand this is happening in America, and it fits the model that has been used when societies have moved to Marxism,” Boykin asserts.
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL analyzed Obama’s methods of strengthening his Marxist-type dictatorial power in our democratic system of government. She is focusing on the shaping of Obama imperial presidency.
She starts with a rhetorical question: Where, you are wondering, have you recently heard that term? Ah, yes. The “imperial presidency” of George W. Bush was a favorite judgment of the left about our 43rd president’s conduct in war, wiretapping and detentions. Yet say this about Mr. Bush: His aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power—the commander-in-chief function.
By contrast, presidents are at their weakest in the realm of domestic policy—subject to checks and balances, co-equal to the other branches. Yet this is where Mr. Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Mr. Obama working with Congress. The more “persistent pattern,” Matthew Spalding recently wrote on the Heritage Foundation blog, is “disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action.”
Put another way: Mr. Obama proposes, Congress refuses, he does it anyway.
For example, Congress refused to pass Mr. Obama’s Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some not here legally. So Mr. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to no longer deport certain illegal immigrants. This may be good or humane policy, yet there is no reading of “prosecutorial discretion” that allows for blanket immunity for entire classes of offenders.
Mr. Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana. Congress has not repealed the law. No matter. The president instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, yet rather than get Congress to repeal it, he stops defending it in court. He dislikes provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, so he asked Congress for fixes. That effort failed, so now his Education Department issues waivers that are patently inconsistent with the statute.
Similarly, when Mr. Obama wants a new program and Congress won’t give it to him, he creates it regardless. Congress, including Democrats, wouldn’t pass his cap-and-trade legislation. His Environmental Protection Agency is now instituting it via a broad reading of the Clean Air Act. Congress, again including members of his own party, wouldn’t pass his “card-check” legislation eliminating secret ballots in union elections. So he stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with appointees who pushed through a “quickie” election law to accomplish much the same. Congress wouldn’t pass “net neutrality” Internet regulations, so Mr. Obama’s Federal Communications Commission did it unilaterally.
In January, when the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Obama’s new picks for the NLRB, he proclaimed the Senate to be in “recess” and appointed the members anyway, making a mockery of that chamber’s advice-and-consent role. In June, he expanded the definition of “executive privilege” to deny House Republicans documents for their probe into the botched Fast and Furious drug-war operation, making a mockery of Congress’s oversight responsibilities.
This president’s imperial pretensions extend into the brute force the executive branch has exercised over the private sector. The auto bailouts turned contract law on its head, as the White House subordinated bondholders’ rights to those of its union allies. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Justice Department leaked that it had opened a criminal probe at exactly the time the Obama White House was demanding BP suspend its dividend and cough up billions for an extralegal claims fund. BP paid. Who wouldn’t?
And it has been much the same in his dealings with the states. Don’t like Arizona’s plans to check immigration status? Sue. Don’t like state efforts to clean up their voter rolls? Invoke the Voting Rights Act. Don’t like state authority over fracking? Elbow in with new and imagined federal authority, via federal water or land laws.
In so many situations, Mr. Obama’s stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn’t pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama’s view of his own importance and authority.
There is a rich vein to mine here for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Americans have a sober respect for a balance of power, so much so that they elected a Republican House in 2010 to stop the Obama agenda. The president’s response? Go around Congress and disregard the constitutional rule of law. What makes this executive overreach doubly unsavory is that it’s often pure political payoff to special interests or voter groups.
Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.
The true Jews of Torah have to follow the Heavenly God’s Commandments and reject the pagan Obama-god’s commandments by voting for somebody else as our next president. The true Jews of Torah have to stop transferring their money to the government-god and asking this government-god to take care of everything – that’s a way to Marxist anti-Torah social degradation. The true Jews of Torah have to use their own money for helping everybody who is in need. The true Jews of Torah cannot do it alone – they have to educate the others and create a Judeo-Christian coalition for returning the country to its Judeo-Christian spiritual roots.