CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Obamanation Inauguration

Jan 22, 2013

Spiritually, morally and politically, the second inauguration speech of Barack Hussein Obama is very frightening indeed. Obama is again showing his true colours as a radically secular, radically immoral, and radically leftist social engineer who has declared war on America, the Constitution, and the American people.

Arguably the most destructive US President ever, his 20-minute speech was as vacuous as it was disingenuous. Consider just a few salient features of all this. For the first time in American presidential inaugural history, a non-clergy member delivered the invocation, and the phrase, “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance was conspicuously – but not surprisingly – absent.

Yet he had the gall and hypocrisy to swear an oath on the Bible and throw the ‘God’ word around a few times in his speech – fully stripped of all biblical content of course.  When he does one day stand before his maker and his judge he will have an awful lot to answer for. Indeed, if he really wants the blessing of God, then why does he keep promoting that which brings about the opposite response from God.

He used his speech as yet another opportunity to push his militant social engineering agenda, including another push for homosexual marriage. He was typically dishonest and morally bankrupt in the way he presented all this. He said:

“It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began, for our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.”

Sorry BHO, homosexuals already have complete equality as everyone else in America. Indeed, I am in exactly the same boat as they are. I cannot marry another man, just as they cannot marry someone of the same gender. We are all completely equal here, with no unjust discrimination whatsoever.

But his is the same baloney the militant activists have been pushing for years – baloney which I cover very carefully in my book, Strained Relations. Clearly, no other president in American history has so radically turned on the time-honoured institutions of marriage and family.

But wait, there’s more. It even gets worse. In one of the more despicable attempts at historical revisionism, he actually made this whopper: “We the people declare today that the most evident of truth that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”

Martin Luther King, like so many other famous black civil rights leaders, would be nauseous to hear their worthy cause besmirched by comparing it to the campaign to legitimise sodomy. As I documented in my book, to compare the struggle for real equality between blacks and whites with the attempt to destroy marriage is rejected by most black leaders.

Indeed, even Jesse Jackson told a group of Harvard Law School students back in 2004 that “gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” And a niece of King, Alveda King, has long denounced Obama for his appalling pro-abortion views, something her uncle would never have countenanced.

But what is especially revolting about his statement is his attempt to equate the struggle of women’s rights (Seneca Falls) and black civil rights (Selma) with what was nothing more than an ugly riot by militant homosexual activists who attacked outnumbered police (Stonewall).

That is the height of deception and arrogance. Ben Johnson explains a bit more about what Stonewall was really all about: “In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama hailed a riot in which homosexual rioters, some dressed in drag, pelted police officers with bottles and attempted to set them on fire for raiding a mafia-controlled gay bar….

“The Stonewall Riots took place on June 28, 1969, after plainclothes New York police officers raided a rundown gay establishment, which the Mafia ran without a liquor license, on morals charges. Slightly after 1 a.m., the Greenwich Village streets around the Stonewall Inn filled with homosexuals, who pelted police with bottles. They slashed police car tires, attempted to overturn cars, and chased the police back inside the bar. ‘We had maybe six people and by this time there were several thousand outside,’ remembered Seymour Pine, a deputy inspector with the Morals Division, who led the bust. ‘The other side was coming like it was a real war. And that’s what it was, it was a war…It was as bad as any situation that I had met in during the army.’

“When not threatening police, the crowd confronted them, chanting: ‘We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We don’t wear underwear/ We show our pubic hairs.’ Their actions, though, were deadly serious. ‘Our goal was to hurt those police,’ said rioter John O’Brien. ‘I wanted to kill those cops for the anger I had in me…It gives back a little of the terror they gave in my life.’

“The protesters – joined by Black Panthers and antiwar protesters – broke the windows, then burst through the door. Howard Smith, a reporter with The Village Voice who was holed up inside the bar with the police and several homosexuals, saw lighter fluid sprayed inside the establishment. ‘I actually thought, as all of them did, that we were going to be killed,’ he said. By morning, much of the establishment had been burned or wrecked. Sporadic hostilities continued for days, culminating in the formation of the Gay Liberation Front.”

Yet incredibly this ugly and horrific rioting is held up by the POTUS as something to emulate, champion and promote, and to be equated with genuine reform movements like the civil rights campaign for blacks. To celebrate moral depravity and social anarchy, while denigrating great historic reform movements, demonstrates what an appalling president this guy really is.

But we also should note his politics. It is simply more flawed big government liberalism. As Charles Krauthammer said in an interview: “There’s not a line here that will ever be repeated, but I think very important historically because this was really Obama unbound. And I think what’s most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech. Remember, he once said that Ronald Reagan was historically consequential in a way that Bill Clinton was not. And what Obama meant is that Obama had changed the ideological course of the country.

“In 1981, in his inaugural address within two minutes, Reagan had declared that government is not the solution, government is the problem. Today’s inaugural address was a rebuke to that entire idea. This speech today was an ode to big government. It was a hymn to big government. In his refrain, the three we the people’s, he said, number one I’m going to defend what liberalism has achieved in the 21st century — where he mentioned Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid. So, I’m not going to let any of that be chipped away. And then, second, he said the vision for the future is climate change and green energy, this is going to be his new expansion of liberalism in the new century. And then the third element was his expansion of civil rights, where he talked about immigrants and gays and even shoe-horned the gun rights under the rubric of security.

“He outlined the liberal agenda, the big government agenda in the future. And Brit [Hume] talked earlier, remarkably there’s absence of any mention of the economy, of deficits, of what outsiders would say is the great challenge of our time headed in over a cliff, a real cliff of debt into a sort of a Greek future. There is nothing of that in this speech. Obama had zero interest in that and this was a declaration that his interest is to restore us to the liberal ascendency of 60 years, that Reagan stopped. He gave us these three decades and Clinton, in the middle of the three decades, said in his ’96 State of the Union address, the era of big government is over. This speech was a declaration that the era of big government is back, I’m the man to do it.”

Yes quite so. Nothing could be further than a view of government as articulated by Reagan which sees the state as the source of our problems, than the statist agenda of BHO who sees the government as the solution to all our problems. In this of course he is in great company: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao all likewise thought that the state was the be all and end all of human existence.

Farewell America, farewell freedom, and farewell the US Constitution.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/transcript-president-obama-inaugural-address/
www.bizpacreview.com/2013/01/21/under-god-missing-from-obamas-inaugural-15951
www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-calls-riot-where-police-were-beaten-a-civil-rights-landmark-in-inaugu?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fa1094dea6-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_01_21_2013&utm_medium=email
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/21/krauthammer_obama_speech_a_declaration_that_the_era_of_big_government_is_back.html

[1539 words]

21 Responses to Obamanation Inauguration

  • Nose punch. Pow.

    Jenna Priest

  • Thanks for the info Bill. May God save America!

    David Roberts

  • And from the ‘church’ service Obama attended yesterday:

    “Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: “forward is the only option … The people couldn’t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.” Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles – like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, “Mr. President, stand on the rock,” citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.”

    blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obama_prays_to_the_voters/

    Mansel Rogerson

  • May God deal with Mr Obama, be it ever so severely, for what he has dared to do – blaspheme His Holy Name, by invoking it in support of a godless agenda.

    However, this too shall pass. There is just 4 years, and maybe even less before the rebuilding can begin.

    I noticed in our reading at home (Acts 13, Paul recounting some of Israel’s history) that Saul was king for 40 years. But God rejected him fairly early on, didn’t He?

    While there’s life, there’s hope!

    John Angelico

  • Dear Bill,

    Thank you for an enlightening analysis of President Obama’s speech.

    Potentially very ill tidings for America unless Christians there stand up and get counted and share their Christian values and beliefs.

    Bill, I wonder if it would be okay for me to post a link to this entry on Facebook. I have quite a few American friends who would find your writing challenging and eye opening.

    God bless and keep up the great work.

    Paul Copeland

  • Sadly, I still hear Australian Christians saying they are glad Obama is in because he’s a “Christian”. In an unsurprising twist of irony, they do not share the same conviction when it comes to the election this year in oz – they will take atheist Julia over Abbott. The MSM are good at their biased job, for what they include and for what they deliberately don’t. Christians need to do basic research on things and given the information rich generate we live in, ignorance is no excuse.

    Simon Fox

  • Feel free Paul

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dear Bill.
    Thank you for letting me post a link at my facebook page. You might like to see the responses so far. I have had two responses so far. One from Joan (not her real name). I have known Joan via Facebook for about 8 years now. She is totally supportive of same sex marriage. Here is our discussion so far.

    My post
    Here is a very revealing post about President Obama’s inauguration by Bill Muehlenberg who is a committed Christian. Have a read and lest me know what you reckon.

    Joan’s response.
    I only skimmed but this part caught my eye ” Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature.” I can’t take a person with such narrow-minded and ignorant views seriously.
    Plus I see he compares gay marriage to incestuous relationships and bestiality and I find that offensive. I appreciate you linking this to me and that you respect this guy but personally I could never agree with him and hold a very low opinion of him from what he’s said in these articles.
    ———-

    My response
    Hey Joan, His views are not ignorant at all. His views are biblical. In one sense it doesn’t matter how we feel personally, it is what God has ordained and created that is most important.

    Hey Joan, we have been buddies on the Internet now for many years, so I hope our disagreement doesn’t muck up our friendship.
    ———–

    Joan’s response
    Biblical or not, his views are hateful and bigoted. The fact that he is so insulting towards an entire group of people just because they were born being attracted to the same sex speaks volumes of his character and in my mind is not very Christian at all. I have dedicated Christian friends who despite their religious views, advocate for gay marriage because they believe ALL people have the right to be loved. Isn’t that what Christianity is about? Tolerance, acceptance and love of all people? I don’t know much about the Bible but I do know there were a number of polygamous marriages within it, yet western society does not legally accept polygamy, does it? I believe there were also marriages between family members and marriages between slave masters and their slaves, yet none of these are legally recognised in modern society. This shows that marriage in the Bible reflects the culture in which it occurred, and that with time, culture and societal values change. Like it or not (though not sure why you wouldn’t like it as it doesn’t affect you personally in the slightest), homosexuality has been accepted in most western societies and so it should be. I simply cannot be friends with someone who actually endorses the kinds of views in these articles. But then again you probably wouldn’t want to be friends with me anyway. I am atheist and refuse to believe in a God, who according to you, treats gay people as sinners.
    ————-

    Joan’s last paragraph is a bit sad as she is now saying she doesn’t want to be friends with me. Very sad as over the last 8 years I have been very supportive of her via the internet. Amazing how simple biblical truths can cause such offence. I will probably respond graciously to her tomorrow.

    Paul Copeland

  • Here in Australia, I’ve heard people support Obama “because he’s cool” i.e. because he is relatively young compared to some other politicians and is a good speaker, he unfortunately seems to appeal to the masses despite his bankrupt policies. It also seemed, when he was elected the first time, that people liked the idea of the US having a black president because it was ‘progressive’. If this attitude is the same in America, it perhaps explains why he managed to get re-elected even though he was half-way through destroying America. If only people would actually think about who they’re voting for, the governments throughout the West would certainly be a lot better. We are certainly experiencing dark times when people give no more thought to voting for their leaders than they would give to voting for the next American Idol.

    Justin Nowland

  • Sad days for a once great nation. Only prayer can turn this around —- I too have good friends, Christian friends, who find things to admire in this man. I find their thinking impossible to understand.
    Anna Cook

  • Personal charm or spell-binding oratory or written output do not necessarily guarantee their possessor’s agenda is noble and just. V.I. Lenin and Adolf Hitler were both known for holding large crowds “riveted” by their oratory. I, personally, cannot help noticing that Richard Dawkins evinces, and the late Christopher Hitchens often manifested, a certain, unmistakable personal charm in their public appearances – a charm which belies their evident contempt for the biblical God and His followers.
    John Wigg

  • Hopefully Christians will return to the content of the first and greatest commandment to love God with all our heart, mind and strength. God can still deliver America without us, but will we suffer the predicted fate of Esther, had she not put her head on the line and appeared before her husband the king without being called?
    It is tragic that people no longer appear to be informed about what Christianity really is, so they make up stories in their mind about what it could be and these stories usually comply with what we feel most comfortable about, rather than what is true. C. S. Lewis hit the nail on the head when he wrote the essay “Man or Rabbit”, it should be standard high school and university compulsory reading.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Well Done Paul
    Yes it is so true isn’t it?
    We can have these “friends” for years, and then in an instant they’re gone. All because we’ve expressed our opinion.
    This is why I struggle with this type of evangelism, even though I do it myself. We befriend someone all the while hoping at some point we may be able to share about Jesus.
    There is another model to follow.
    Daniel Kempton

  • Obama is making a mockery; ‘swearing’ on the Bible; as he doesn’t believe what it says.

    Darilyn Adams

  • Maybe it’s the way they do things in America, but I found it very strange that the President was sworn in twice, on successive days, both occasions seen on world television. It may not be just this President, but it seems to make a mockery of the swearing-in process.

    David Morrison

  • Everyone goes on about freedom of religion etc, but in reality it is not about religion.
    It is about POLITICS.
    Politics is about Who rules a country & its people – in other words, WHO IS KING here.
    The issue is of a world view, and Who is King.
    JESUS CHRIST is King, not any elected man.
    And only the religion or that world view that upholds the King & that kingdom of Christ that is here, will eventually survive because it is Jesus that builds the church, & it is the church that directs the path of politics through people deciding what is righteous & good as laid out in the Scriptures and also as the Holy Spirit at times directs.
    Michael Thompson

  • Alistair Cooke describing Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration:’He got on his horse, rode up to the Capitol, tethered his nag, went inside, made his speech – almost inaudibly- went out, mounted his horse and rode off back to his boarding house, where, finding the places at the head of the dinner table taken, he sat down below the salt’. Times have changed a little.

    Nina Blondel

  • Paul, I would simply point out to ‘Joan’ that there is no evidence that anyone was ever ‘born that way’. Identical twins correlate 100% when it comes to skin colour or hair colour or sex, but nothing like that for homosexual attraction. The ‘born that way’ claim is a lie, and always will be. Most of the causes for it appear to be environment related.

    Since her entire argument rests on that assumption, she may as well be talking about what kind of cheese the moon is made of. You could probably gracefully point out that since everybody has a mother and father, and always has, the natural way for people to be born at all is within that paradigm, not outside of it. Homosexuality doesn’t even make sense as a genetic trait – how are any traits passed on if not through one of each sex?

    Her real problem is that she hates God and is just looking for an excuse to supposedly be more moral than Him, because then she feels better about herself. Read what she wrote! Isn’t it just one long (vacuous) justification of her ‘righteous judgement of God’? But Who invented male and female in the first place? Not any of these people who claim to be so very smart, even as their own lives would not exist without that combination!

    Mark Rabich

  • To my surprise, many people have not heard of climategate.
    A few years ago, scientists’ emails at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were either leaked or hacked into, revealing some damning truths about the so-called scientists responsible for coming up with “reliable data” for the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. They were trying to fudge graphs about temperatures over the past few years, claiming that they were rising rather than observing and recording what was actually occurring – minimal change, or if anything, a slight decline in temperatures. Their emails revealed that they were on a mission to obfuscate the truth. Thus we now have the “Hide The Decline” song amidst conversations that continue about this scandal.

    See this publication by Australian scientist, John Costella. You can read the emails for yourself.

    www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

    And see this article in The Telegraph.

    www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    Of course, much of the media hasn’t mentioned this so most people just don’t know. It’s a conspiracy of silence. Andrew Bolt, though, has explored and reported on the false science of climate change in the Herald Sun and on Channel 10’s ‘Bolt Report’ for a number of years.

    You can read more about one of the greatest lies of our times, climate change, at this link:

    www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1321487125_document_moran_climatechange-thefacts.pdf

    The Greens are essentially about death, not greening the planet; death of the economy, death of morality, death of industry, death of western culture and death of Christianity. Greenism is a myth that is fuelled by sentimentality, brainwashing and lies.

    If you have the time, watch one or both of these. The first one goes for just under an hour; the second is just over 6 minutes long. The first youtube video is a warning about the dangers of the worldwide green movement.
    Blasphemy alert – a couple of times near the start.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHhtlu-F5VM

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ctjTv4mmY

    And now Labour, under Gillard, has handed every Australian a carbon tax.
    What for?
    For a left wing myth.

    Angela Parham

  • Yes quite right Angela

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Let’s hope that now that an election date has been scheduled, Australian voters show themselves to be a little wiser than their American counterparts. God willing, we will see a conservative prime minister, an increased Christian presence in parliament and a very weakened Labor and Greens influence.
    Mario Del Giudice

Leave a Reply