Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 2

by
Dr. Frederick Meekins
Fellow Of Worldview Studies
Issachar Institute For The Study Of Apologetics & Policy

In "Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1", I examined the Black

liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright and how the leftist
radicalism at the heart of this worldview serves as the foundation
of the belief system of President Barack Obama and forms the
basis of many of his policies. And even though Obama claims to
have renounced his connections to his former pastor Jeremiah
Wright, since Obama sat under this pastor for nearly 20 years
and continues to advocate these kinds of policies, it is obvious
Obama has not distanced himself from sociopolitical radicalism
to the extent he claims he has.

Even if Obama is successful in tossing under the rug the

insinuations of having embraced Afrosupremacist theology, he
has gone out of his way repeatedly to let the world know he
spent the early years of his career as a community organizer.
Obama supporters would have average Americans believe that
this position involved little more than getting the plumbing fixed
in rundown apartments or organizing senior citizens outings to
the local supermarket for the elderly without their own
transportation.
While these are laudable undertakings, these tasks do not
encapsulate the true purposes and intents of community
organizing. These are just the bait to lure the needy yet
unsuspecting into deeper levels of manipulation.

Though Barack Obama looked to Jeremiah Wright to provide a

theological foundation for his ambitions and life's work, the
danger the President represents goes beyond even the vile
message propagated by his religious mentor. For despite his
egregious faults, one has to hand it to Jeremiah Wright that at
least he is upfront about what he believes and speaks his mind.

Obama's apostles have tried to place their liege's hallowed past

beyond the realm of critical scrutiny by insinuating it is now
racist to look into what exactly community organizing is and that
Jesus Himself was one. However, it is anything but holy and
nothing whatsoever to do with race.

At its heart, community organizing is about Communist

agitation. In a National Review article titled "What Did Obama
Do As A Community Organizer", Byron York defines community
organizing as "the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved
population...and agitating them until they become so upset about
their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on
local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem often by giving
the affected group money."

It sounds like such an approach is morally neutral as it doesn't

differ on the surface all that much from the tactics employed by
any group along the political spectrum. However, in the case of
Barack Obama, this strategy would be used to implement the
kinds of things he learned from Jeremiah Wright and the other
acolytes of perdictious revolution.

The school of activism with which Obama aligned himself

employed such tactics in pursuits of obviously radical leftist
ends. Obama's employer the Calumet Community Religious
Conference embraced the doctrines of Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky's magnum opus Rules For Radicals is dedicated to none

other than Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness. Thus, if Obama was
mentored by those who in turn took their inspiration from the
devil, by definition, doesn't that make Obama none other than
Satan's intellectual grandchild?

The original purpose of the Church was to use its resources to

assist the individual to get their lives straightened out in the
name and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, under the
rubric of social organizing, we are to no longer view ourselves
as responsible for ourselves but instead as part of a
COMMUNITY and with docility take commands and
instructions from those that have set themselves up as the
vanguard of the proletariat who are not bound by the restrictions
placed upon we lower breeds of humanity.

This is seen in terms of the denigration of American icon John

Wayne. In most of his films, John Wayne portrayed characters
that looked to their own moral wherewithal or their families to
solve their own problems. Such thinking that is nowadays
mocked used to be admired as self-reliance. In the worldview of
Barack Obama, we are to have both our guns and our God wrest
from us and are instead to look to the state for purpose and to
solve our problems as epitomized by his remark that he wanted
to “make government cool again”.

Though he may not say it directly, but by examining what

Obama says and in analyzing it in light of its implications and
how he himself lives, one can legitimately conclude that this
would-be messiah thinks that you exist for the benefit of the
state and those like himself better than you. For example, at the
cornerstone of Obama’s social philosophy is the plan to reduce
the standard and quality of life for the vast majority of
Americans. In May 2008 in a speech in Oregon, Obama said,
“We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and
keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”

Does the average American really comprehend the level of

control being proposed here? Why in the name of perdition does
anyone want a president that thinks it is his place to tell you
what to drive, what you can eat, and how warm you can keep
your house? For any government that can tell you what you can
and cannot do in your own home to that extent will eventually no
longer permit you to live in your own home for reasons of
national security, environmental sustainability, or whatever other
bogus excuse will be bandied about the day the mass roundups
start.

Even worse, Obama does not live by the standard he thinks out
to be imposed upon you. For while you are not to eat anything
not on a government approved menu or go anywhere beyond the
radius one can travel by unicycle or pogostick, Obama does not
sit home in the dark, shivering with a blanket draped over his
shoulders, munching on saltines.

The environment is no where near the point of collapse that he

wants you to be duped into believing. One of the places Obama
vacations is the U.S. Virgin Islands. Though some esteem
Obama with an almost messianic aura and he has come close to
applying such rhetoric to himself in prattle about turning back
the seas and such, I some how doubt he walked to that particular
destination.

Yet it is not enough for Obama that your life comes to a

screeching halt to assuage the environmental consciences of big
shot liberals such as himself and Al Gore (who has obviously
been eating whatever he wants since leaving the Vice
Presidency). Obama also wants your life regimented and under
close government scrutiny.

According to the sacred Barack, it is not enough for the average

citizen to mind their own business and take care of one’s own
family. Rather, one must surrender oneself to the will of the
group or the COMMUNITY.

As the next stage of the liberation theology he sat under for

nearly 20 years in the church overseen by Jeremiah Wright,
Obama postulated in a commencement address at Wesleyan
University in June 2008 that “our individual salvation depends
on collective salvation.” This is quite revealing as to the
underlying religious orientation of this particular president.
In traditional Biblical theology, salvation is a state of grace or
unmerited favor imputed to the INDIVIDUAL pardoning one
from the penalty for sin because it the individual that must
believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who lived the
perfect life we could not, died, and shed His blood as the penalty
for our sins and rose from the dead that we have eternal life.
However, to Barack Obama, salvation is not about an eternal
reward for loving Jesus with one’s mind, body, and soul; rather
salvation to Barack Obama is about conformity to the group.
You, as a distinct consciousness, do not matter all that much.

This is evident in both Obama's policy proposals as well as in his

disdain for the behavioral principles underlying the moral code
based in Scripture that prevents some of man's tendencies from
degenerating into tyrannical anarchy or collectivism if these
desires become unshackled from the realist perspective that man
is a sinner and still hears sin’s siren call even when forgiven and
redeemed through the shed blood of Christ.

To prevent the masses of the Biblically illiterate from being

swept away by Obama’s rhetorical manipulations, Dr. James
Dobson spoke out against some of the secular messiah’s
misinterpretations of the Good Book. Falling for some of the
hype that he’s the best thing since Jesus Christ and actually the
Lord’s replacement in the hearts of many, Obama has proceeded
to inform the rest of us which parts of his “predecessor’s” Word
may apply in the new “AB” era, as some have suggested all of
history now be divided between before and after Obama.
Without a more careful exegesis into and research of the Biblical
text, the holy Obama concluded that, if one thinks that
prohibitions against homosexuality still apply today, than those
against the consumption of shellfish still apply as well. In
response, according to a 6/24/08 Associated Press article titled
“Obama: Dobson Is Making Stuff Up With Bible Criticism”,
Dobson dared to say of Obama’s assertion, “I think he’s
[Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of
the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”

Dobson’s opinion is actually closer to the historic Christian

position. Most denominations and theologians claim that the
majority of Israelite dietary guidelines do not apply to the
Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles because these
restrictions were not reiterated in the New Testament and in fact
were set aside in various passages.

For example, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus Himself assures that that

one is not defiled by what goes into one’s mouth but rather by
what comes out of it. And in Acts 10, the Apostle Peter is told in
a vision to deliberately eat of an animal said to be ceremonially
unclean. If the act of eating a particular kind of animal was in
and of itself immoral and sinful, would the God of the universe
have given instructions to have done so?

The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Nowhere are the

Old Testament injunctions labeling the practice as wrong
rescinded in the New and in fact they are reemphasized in
passages such as Romans 1 and included in a list of offences
barring their perpetrators from entering Heaven if one does not
seek forgiveness for them through the shed blood of Christ.

And contrary to all the sissies in a hissy over Rick Warren

offering the inauguration prayer because Warren did not endorse
the notion of gay marriage, insisting that this lifestyle is wrong
does not mean that those falling into this temptation will be
rounded up and sent to prison (though a percentage would
probably enjoy that) or be put to death. It could be argued that
Jesus softened the penalty for the transgressions of the lustful
flesh.

Though Jesus was merciful He nevertheless retained the position

that what the women at the well did was sin by telling her to sin
no more. Today, those wanting to air their dirty laundry with
pride rather than keeping it between only God and themselves as
those with a tender conscience would prefer, vociferously insist
that what they have done isn’t even sin.

And in the eyes of mystical humanists such as Obama and his

ministerial supporters in the Order of the Scarlet Woman, this is
the area in which Dobson has done something unforgivable.
Dobson has held on to the notion that sin, in its most basic form,
is an individual act.

According to Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who basically endorsed

Obama for no other reason than that Obama is Black as before
Caldwell supported George W. Bush, said Dobson was “a bit
over the top”, and “crossed the line”. More importantly,
Caldwell admonished, “There has been a call for a higher level
of politics and politicking. So to attack at this level is
inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to
hold everybody accountable.”

Ladies and gentlemen, what is being called for here is an

abridgement of the fundamental constitutional liberties of
anyone daring to disagree with or even question the new
messiah. For while Dr. Dobson has been told to essentially sit
down and shut up, a cabal of leftwing clerics of which Cadwell
has been numbered established a website called
JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. Examining the groups
fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding the new
social gospel that elevates the group above the individual.

For example, the website proclaimed regarding Dobson, “He

doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to
divide.” Let’s look at this for a moment.

Aren’t Obama, his false prophet Jeremiah Wight, and lesser

luminaries such as Rev. Caldwell each riding the coattails of
each using religion to divide? For crying out loud, the Black
liberation theology expounded by Jeremiah Wright thinks God
doesn’t even love you if you are White.

Furthermore, who says religion is not meant to divide? While

Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish,
there are just as many other passages informing us that Christ
came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the
chaff.

Also, interesting, isn’t it, how in the coming together in unity

that it is those holding to a traditional understanding of Biblical
morality that are to compromise their standards rather than those
who fall short of these principles and from then on strive to
elevate their conduct?

As the declaration points out, “What does speak for me is

David’s Psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we
come together in unity.” That is true, but in order to unite, there
must be considerable agreement as to what principles one is
going to unite around. Of those with whom one disagrees
considerably, the Bible commands, “Come from out among them
and be ye separate.”

The declaration continues, “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me

when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack; He doesn’t
speak for me when he denigrates his neighbors’ views when they
don’t line up with his.”

As noted earlier, by criticizing Dobson’s criticizing, aren’t they

themselves guilty of criticizing? Did not the holy Barack partake
of the same act?

What if Dobson's neighbor was a vile skinhead that plucked the

eyes out of newborn kittens? Is Dobson just suppose to sit their
and not say anything about this ethical transgression as well if
we are to take the mutated uncontextualized version of judge not
to its ultimate conclusion?

Contrary to the Obamaist declaration, Dobson does not confine

the values of faith to two or three issues. First off, Focus on the
Family is not a church.

Thus, the organization does not necessarily have the same

spiritual mandate to address to the same extent the totality of
existence of life that God's sacred assembly has been called to.
Yet that said, Focus on the Family addresses a wider array of
issues and concerns than these liberal Black churches that have
for the most part confined their message to propagating the
blame Whitey mentality of whom Republicans and
Conservatives rank their primary targets.

From the tone of the declaration, Dobson stands accused of not

seeking justice, encouraging the oppressed, or defending the
cause of the vulnerable. Yet when Dobson rises to do so, these
collared hypocrites accuse him of reducing the faith to two or
three issues and not working to restore what is broken in our
communities. If the efforts of Focus on the Family have been
reduced to two or three issues, it is only because that apostates
like Obama and his supporters have focused their war against
Christ and the Bible towards a few central cultural pillars in the
hopes of causing the entire edifice of our heritage of liberty to
implode in upon itself.

Unable to speak or act on their own behalf, who is more than the
unborn that the babykillers can’t wait to hack apart with their
meat cleavers? What institution is more vulnerable than the
contemporary family with the assorted threats out to achieve its
abolition through easy divorce, its dilution through its alleged
recognized extension to homosexuals, and through the
proliferation of government programs that make parents of both
sexes feel either redundant in the case of men as providers or
obsolete in the case of work at home mothers.

Leftist clergy drone on and on about the beauty of religious unity

and cooperation. However, if they are going to embrace
practices such as infanticide and sodomite nuptials as good and
positive things, one might as well toss the Bible in the paper
shredder and sleep in Sunday morning. Under such a
worldview, nothing is wrong anymore and you might as well do
whatever the Sheol you please.

Under the Obama regime, while your obligation to God might be

diminished, don’t think you are going to slide by on easy street
in terms of guilt being toned down. Rather a whole new litany
of demands will be placed upon an otherwise productive citizen.

In commencement addresses given in both 2008 and 2009,

Obama repeatedly called for a renewed spirit of national service.
To most Americans accustomed to working for what they have,
on the surface this may sound like little more than what they are
already doing. However, the plans go much shockingly further.

In the free market economy of the United States, the individual

offers some kind of commodity --- be it labor, a tangible good
produced, brainpower, or time --- in exchange for monetary
compensation. And though the system is not perfect, the higher
the participant rises in the system, the greater the rewarding
compensation one is able to accrue.

However, that may come to a screeching halt if our Seigneur and

Chief gets to have his way. For in his worldview, no longer will
it be enough to strive within the rules to get the things one
wants. Rather in a manner not unlike a medieval manor, if the
New World Order advocated by a succession of presidents each
in their own way with distinctive emphases comes to pass, you
will be bound to the same occupational station and residential
area not until you as a free person decides to change it but rather
until those higher up the system decide to amend such
biographical characteristics.

In his 2008 commencement address, Obama said, “There’s no

community service requirement in the real world; no one is
forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off stage,
and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the
other things our money, culture says, you should buy. You can
choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that
tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”

Obama cites as precedent his own case where he took a position

as a community organizer making $12,000 per year while driving
a $2,000 car. But whereas you are suppose to remain content at
a life of minimal toil, since Obama has always been in his own
mind the man who would be king, he was always entitled to
possess so much more.

According to an Investor’s Business Daily article posted at

Yahoo News on 6/2/2008 titled “Living On Obama’s Collective
Farm", Obama made over $4 million that year. But I guess that’s
what it takes to keep a ball-and-chain like Michelle in $500
athletic shoes far uglier than my $20 K-Mart ones and $5000
handbags (a good used automobile doesn’t cost much more than
that).

From comparing these dichotomies, one can conclude that

Obama does not really care so much about the poor. Rather, in
true Alinskyite fashion, he sees those in such circumstances as
pawns to agitate into a froth through which to seize power and
advance his own status. If it had meant a life of toil and
anonymity as it does for most dedicating their lives to uplifting
the poverty-stricken, would Obama have even pursued this path
in his early career?

As to whether or not Obama will allow participation in national

service to remain an individual choice is open to interpretation.
In the 2008 address, Obama went on to say, “On the big issues
that our nation faces, difficult choices await. We’ll have to face
some hard truths, and some sacrifice will be required --- not only
from you individually, but from the nation as a whole.” But in
light of $5000 handbags, weekend jaunts onboard Air Force I to
Broadway plays, and pizza chefs flown in from the Midwest to
appease a gastronomical hankering, that call does not apply to
his highness of course.

Often, those without an inclination towards politics shrug their

shoulders at these grandiose pronouncements and go about their
business thinking that those in authority won't go much beyond
the stage of public elocution. However, this time around such
disengaged citizens might not be so insightful.

The President's ball-and-chain Michelle said in a campaign

speech, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to
demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your
isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone...Barack
Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual,
uninvolved, uninformed."

Listen up, you battle ax, I'll be as cynical as I want to be. Your
hubby might have been a Professor of Constitutional Law, but
apparently he was as dedicated to that occupational station as he
was to his seat in the Illinois State House, where he regularly
and decisively voted “present, and to the U.S. Senate, where his
attendance was shoddy at best as he merely used that office to
campaign for the presidency and to pull down a hefty paycheck
while doing it.

The First Amendment protects the rights of the individual to

believe whatever they want and to enunciate their opinion as to
the actions and motivations of the nation’s leaders. This includes
saying that these politicians are little more than frauds. Any
legislation or executive order to the contrary is an infringement
of this Constitutional protection.

And as to being isolated and in one’s “comfort zone”, so long as

one pays their bills and stays to themselves, they have the right
to be every bit of a hermit as they want to be. Until any
President can lock down the border and prevent illegal aliens
from violating the territorial integrity of the United States, the
Chief Executive has so failed in his fundamental responsibility
that he ant those that work beneath him should have no spare
time whatsoever to be concerned with how I spend my own
time.

Though the discerning might have to weave the disparate

fragments together into a complete tapestry, the minions of
despotism and iniquity are so full of themselves that they cannot
resist scattering crumbs and often wholesale cognitive meals
detailing their intentions to destroy liberty and reduce the
population to the level of modern day serfs. Shame is, the
election of Barack Obama is proof how a significant percentage
of the American people would rather ignore the harsh realties
staring them right in the face.

by Frederick Meekins