Obama’s Religion

There has been furious debate over President Obama’s religion. Many people believe that the President is a Muslim. Others defend his claim that he is a Christian. Ann Coulter asserts that Obama is an atheist.

However, I believe that all of them are wrong. President Obama’s religion is Narcissism… his god is self. Barack Obama worships Barack Obama. Now, I’m not the first to point out Mr. Obama’s hyper-inflated ego, but I think this goes far beyond that. The pattern of behavior is clear. He is his own god.


Added 9/12/2010
Regarding Mr. Obama’s purported Christianity, if he is indeed something akin to a Christian, then he is a heretic. He has repeatedly spoken of “collective salvation.” This is not a Christian doctrine. He may be a deist or a theist, but he is not a Christian. This doctrine comes from “liberation theology” which is basically Karl Marx wearing a Jesus mask. I suppose you could call him a “Liberation Theologist.”

One of the central tenets of Christianity is humility. Certainly, anyone who is capable of enduring the limelight will have the appearance of arrogance, if not actual arrogance. However, I believe that the President’s behavior demonstrates something beyone mere vanity.

I think that Narcissism as a religion is more prevalent than most people would believe. There are many people whose self love goes beyond mere conceit to become the primary virtue in their own eyes. I would assert that many people in this egotistical age view their self-esteem as being one of the greatest things to be pursued. Certainly, egotism has always been among us, but our culture has been pushing self-esteem to an unhealthy extreme for decades now. Children are coddled and insulated from the real world. They are taught that their value comes from their opinion of themselves, rather than from their personhood. It was inevitable that we would have a President who embodied this fault sooner or later. It just happened to be Barack Obama.

I suppose it is possible that he suffers from mere vanity or even Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Certainly, I am not the first to observe that. Many power-hungry politicians and celebrities are narcissistic, at least to some degree. Our media-driven culture sees to that. The unconstitutional growth of government over the past century has also encouraged this phenomenon.


Added 9/13/2010
Just a few areas of arrogance off the top of my head:

President Obama has refused to release his academic record.
President Obama publically rebuked the Supreme Court in this year’s State of the Union Address, an unprecedented move.
President Obama will single out a specific opponent for attack. In theory, this is not unique to him, but he seems to be doing this with a greater frequency. He seems to be making the attacks personal, rather than based on a disagreement on policy. Also, he has chosen media opponents, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for personal attack.
President Obama repeatedly blames George W. Bush even two years into his Presidency.
President Obama has also repeatedly referred to the deficit that he inherited from Bush while neglecting to mention that he voted for that spending while in the Senate. He also failed to mention that he has added to that deficit as President and doubled our national debt.


Added 7/11/2011

President Obama gave 41 speeches from January 1, 2009 to September 23, 2009. In those 41 speeches, he referred to himself 1,198 times. That’s yet another sign that points to his extreme egotism.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/23/dan-gainor-obama-speeches-ego/





Further resources:
Liberation Theology
Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?
Wikipedia: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Google Health: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Mayo Clinic: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

12 Comments

Filed under politics, theology

Foreign Laws

This was the second half of my last post. However, I think it stands on its own better than as a part of that one, so here it is again:

The idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Anchor Babies and Foreign Laws

In her column of 8/18/2010, Ann coulter makes yet another obzervation regarding liberal hypocrisy.

Liberals/progressives/leftists in this country constantly try to get U.S. courts to make decisions based not on U.S. law, but on foreign law. There is, however, one notable exception: anchor babies.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

The article goes on to cite the immigration policies of Sweden (usually a leftist’s dream), Britain, and Canada. Looks like we are the only ones to allow anchor babies. Of course, the left would argue that the 14th Amendment causes that, but the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not require that interpretation.

Anyway, the idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Social Justice Vs. Mercy

Of late, there has been a confusion of terminology in the church by saying that the needy “deserve” our help. They do not and it is not Christian to say that they do. They need it. God demands that we give it. We should give it, as Christians and as human beings. However, we do not give it because they “deserve” it.

There is no such thing as “social justice.” There is only justice, which means receiving what you deserve. What you deserve is nothing. You came into this world naked and will leave it that way as well. The world owes you nothing. God owes you nothing.

However, God has chosen to give mercy to those who would receive it. Mercy is giving you a good thing, even though you do not deserve it. As Christians, we are to share God’s love and mercy through various means. We do not owe these things to anyone, but we freely give because God freely gave to us.

Helping the poor is not justice. Helping the poor is mercy. The poor, the sick, the hurting… these do not deserve our time, our money, or any of our resources. However, we share our resources in mercy because we were shown mercy. We show compassion because we are human beings. Mercy is necessary, but we should never confuse it with justice.

This is not just an argument over semantics. Words have power. Meanings matter. Justice and mercy are two separate concepts which should not be confused or conflated.

2 Comments

Filed under politics, theology

I Love You, Dad

As a child, I said these words to my dad on a regular basis. Sometime around adolescence, I stopped saying them. It wasn’t because I stopped loving my father. I guess it was just that adolescent male transition. Somewhere, I don’t know when, the adolescent me discovered that it just wasn’t “manly” enough.

Flash forward to today. I’m the dad now. My young son tells me that he loves me all the time. I cannot express how much it thrills me to hear those words. At some point, I realized that I wasn’t saying them to my dad.

I’ve heard the songs like “Everything I Own” by Bread, written by lead singer David Gates as a tribute to his late father. The lyrics contain a very potent reminder that you need to tell those you love of that fact. I’ve also heard the stories that read like letters to Dear Abby about people who found themselves in that situation. In addition, I know people who experienced that heartache. Stories like that move your heart. These things led me to start hugging my dad more when we were visiting my parents, but still saying the words was hard. Years of not saying them had made it difficult. As I said before, I have always loved my father – I just stopped saying it directly. Even though I stopped saying the words, I found other ways to express my love for my father. However, I now realize that is not enough. Every time I hear my son say: “I love you, Dad,” my heart soars with rapture that cannot be expressed.

I no longer care about society or culture’s ideas or my perception of them. I cannot and will not refuse to say those words anymore. It’s not easy – years of habit cannot be erased easily. I don’t know if that awkwardness exists for every man, or just for me. It doesn’t matter. I love my dad and I will tell him.

“I love you, Dad!”

Is there someone you know,
You’re loving them so,
But taking them all for granted.
You may lose them one day,
Someone takes them away,
And they don’t hear the words you long to say
from “Everything I Own” by David Gates

Leave a comment

Filed under Personal

Criticizing the NRA’s “carveout”

updated 6/18/2010, 6/20/2010
Note: Upon further consideration, my position regarding this issue has changed. I have chosen to leave the original parts, and simply add new material at the bottom of the article.

Redstate is among the many voices criticizing the NRA for their decision to take the “carveout” in the latest attempt at campaign “finance reform.” Indeed, many NRA members, myself included, do not agree with the decision to take this exemption from a bad and unconstitutional piece of legislation. Even a member of the NRA’s board has joined in the criticism.

It looks as though the leadership of the NRA decided to take the first offering instead of holding out for something better. Though I do not agree with their actions here, I do understand them. The NRA may be mighty (and this shows that the left fears them), but they do not have unlimited resources. They would prefer to spend their time and money fighting for the second amendment and allow other single issue organizations to fight for the first. Therefore, they took the first small victory rather than hold out for the better victory they could have attained. While I understand why they took that action, I heartily disagree with it. First, there is no guarantee that the “carveout” would survive into the final version signed into law. Second, the ‘carveout” would not protect other champions of the second amendment like the state affiliates of the NRA as well as its “rival” organizations. This does not serve the cause of our second amendment freedoms. Third, the law is, itself, unconstitutional and an affront to all free people.

The problem, though, is that this actions has led to people cancelling their NRA memberships and calling on others to do the same. This is not a good idea. I will NOT cancel my NRA membership.

To abandon the NRA because they are not perfect is not wise. If you support the right to keep and bear arms, you should be in the NRA if you can afford to spend the $35/year. If you prefer another group, such as the GOA, then join BOTH. The NRA has something other “purer” groups don’t: numbers. The left doesn’t fear the GOA, JPFO, or any other gun group. They do fear the NRA. The NRA has serious clout because of their history, their reputation, and their numbers.

Despite this disagreement, I will continue to be a proud member of the NRA. They are my best representative on second amendment issues in DC and nationwide.


6/18/2010
Let me clarify, I’m glad that the NRA participated in the fight for the first amendment. I just know that when negotiating from a position of power, one does not take the first offer of the weaker party. Am I overestimating the power of the NRA? If this exemption were all they could get, then I could see doing that, but this is the name that makes liberals go into a cold sweat.

I understand that the NRA is not a first amendment organization. They only got into this fight to protect themselves and got out as soon as they were protected. They want to reserve their resources for the second amendment. I understand that. I just think accepting the first offer from the surrendering party is not the best strategy. The NRA is exempt, but what about their state affiliates. Besides, the exception could easily be repealed and allowing the law to pass sets a very bad precedent.

Anyway, that was not intended to be the main point of my post. The point was that I am still a proud and loyal member of the National Rifle Association. Those who would leave the NRA over this would only weaken the cause of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


6/18/2010 (addendum)
The Washington Post reports that the NRA’s exemption to the DISCLOSE act has caused disunity within the Democratic party. This may have the effect of killing the bill. I sincerely hope so.


6/20/2010
Upon further consideration of the issue, I no longer oppose the decision by the NRA to accpet this exemption. Don’t get me wrong, there is still a part of me that objects to this, but overall, I believe this is the right decision. I had considered deleting this post as I no longer agree with my original position regarding the exemption, but decided to leave it and add to it so that my reconsideration of the issue might be a part of this record.

As to the people who are leaving the NRA over this issue, my position has not changed. The NRA is the largest and most effective organization defending our second amendment. Leaving because of one or even many disagreements is not a good idea (unless you no longer agree with the right to keep and bear arms). I don’t agree 100% with anyone, even my wife, who I love beyond words. If you believe in our right to keep and bear arms, join the NRA. If you want to join other “purer” groups as well, then do that too. I believe that we need all of our organizations. They help each other (even if they don’t admit it) though they could do a better job at cooperative effort.


6/20/2010 (addendum)
What made me change my mind was thinking of the TV show M*A*S*H. The 4077th is a battlefield hospital in a war, not a civilian hospital in a quiet little town. When mass casualties arrive, the doctors there must engage in triage and meatball surgery. There are more patients than surgeons or time. Now, a TV show is not going to be consistently accurate in their depiction of medical procedures, but these procedures (as depicted in M*A*S*H) are instructive as we are engaged in a (metaphorical) war for our second amendment rights.

Triage is separating patients into categories and priority levels. Basically, some patients will live even if they have to wait. These patients can be ignored for the time being until the more urgent patients are taken care of or if their condition worsens. Other patients will die no matter what can be done for them or would require a level of care that could not be provided due to the number of patients and limited resources. As unpleasant as this is, these patients must be ignored in a crisis situation. Patients with an intermediate level of need are seen first.

“Meatball surgery” is a colloquial term for battlefield surgery. It is done quickly with the goal of stabilizing the patient enough to survive. This would allow the surgeons to move on to save other patients or transport the patient to another hospital where the surgical “fine tuning” could be done.

In this “war” to preserve our liberty we must triage or pick our battles. Some fights are more strategically important or even easier to win. Other fights must be avoided or postponed.

Similarly, we sometimes must perform “meatball surgery” – not putting full resources into a worthy fight in order to have resources available for other fights. The 4077th would “patch them up then send them out” to another hospital in order to maximize resources. The NRA joined this fight, achieved its objective, then handed the fight to other organizations – ones that are dedicated to preserving the first amendment. The NRA is mighty and greatly feared by the opponents of liberty, but it does not have limitless resources. The forces of statism are fighting this war on many fronts with the resources of wealthy progressives behind them. Unfortunately, there are more battles than can actually be fought at any given time.

Just as any physician who values the Hippocratic Oath will be pained at having to follow these emergency procedures, I and others are not completely satisfied with the outcome of this situation. However, I now believe that the leadership of the NRA made the right decision here.



The NRA’s statement regarding the “DISCLOSE Act.”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Limited Government – Fast Food Style

I’ve eaten at more fast food establishments than I can count. Some are quality and some are not. 

One of my favorites is Chick-Fil-A. Famous for their spelling-impaired cows, Chick-Fil-A has made a name for themselves by selling an amazing number of menu items that feature chicken. You can get it grilled or breaded and fried; patty, strips, or nuggets; on a bun, in a wrap, in a salad, or by itself. They even do chicken for breakfast! Chick-Fil-A basically does one main thing (with a variety of smaller things in the side) and does it well. 

In-N-Out Burger is another favorite of mine. This west coast establishment also has a “do one thing, do it well” philosophy. Where some fast food joints have over twenty combos, In-N-Out has three. (Of course there is also their “not-so-secret secret menu,” but that is just a re-arrangement of existing menu ingredients.) Missing is the bewildering array found at most fast food restaurants – there is a beautiful simplicity to their menu. I’ve watched employees in so many eateries have to look up seldom-ordered menu options. In my own (brief and fruitless) fast food experience, I had to look up things as well. At the well-oiled machine that is In-N-Out, I have never seen an employee bewildered at what something is. Their kitchen is open, so customers can see what is going on inside. A large window in the drive-through ensures that customers there can see in as well. Again, we see an eatery that does one thing, and does it well. 

Both of these culinary delights are quite popular despite not having the bewildering menu array we have come to expect from fast food restaurants. I would assert that the simplicity of their menus is a leading contributor to the quality that customers appreciate in their products. 

Now, contrast that with our government. Over the past century or so, the size and scope of our federal government has grown considerably, as have those of the states. Government is doing for us many things that we ought to be doing for ourselves. As a result, the bureaucratic intrusion in our daily lives has grown crippling to our liberty and the economy. Taxes, permits, fees, regulations, paperwork… the list grows rather than shrinks. 

In an attempt to “straw man” the concerns of conservatives, tea party activists, and others; those on the left have often accused us of wanting no government or even being anti-government. This is not at all what we want. We want what our Constitution mandates: a government limited to a few specific areas. Within those areas, the federal government has tremendous power and authority. Outside those, it has little to none. 

By seeking to do everything and taking authority away from the states, the people, private enterprise, private charity, and private organizations the federal government has bloated itself beyond reason. This is not just an argument against high taxes or high spending. The very fact that the government is trying to do things that is not designed to do, has no constitutional authority to do, and is not effective at doing is causing it to fail at it all. 

I would rather have the “lean machine” government that was both effective and respectful of the Constitution and the people. Eateries such as Chick-Fil-A and In-N-Out Burger are able to focus on quality through their relatively simple menus. The government would do well to learn from their “do one thing, do it well” philosophy. 


Hindenblog asserts that President Obama’s attempts to straw man fans of limited government opens the door for us to talk to others about just what limited government is all about.

5 Comments

Filed under politics