Obama’s inaugural Bibles represent statism, not God
With my article on Obama’s inauguration came a lot of criticism of my argument that Obama was promoting a godless state. I still stand by that argument, and while a complete analysis of the president’s support for statism could fill a book, I’d like to point out some pertinent facts regarding his symbolic use of the King and Lincoln Bibles. They were not used as symbols of the word of God, but as defining Obama’s vision of a centralized state — bureaucratically mindless and unfeeling.
Upon his inauguration, Barack Obama committed the oath upon two Bibles: one from Martin Luther King, and the other from Abraham Lincoln. In doing so, he was sending a message to the country. It was not a message of pride that a black man was now president or that America is defined under God, like so many think, but a message of statism and division. To take the oath on anything less than a Bible would be unacceptable to the American people and so he used these Bibles to promote his message.
Note: Kistyn Sinema (D-AZ) refused to take her oath on a Bible, instead choosing to take the oath on a copy of the Constitution. Sinema’s politics have been described as extremely left-wing and she has described herself as “A Prada Socialist.”
Obama does nothing without hidden meaning and message. His narcissism won’t allow it, and his gestures and speeches about working together and peace are radically leftist in nature. They indicate a deep hatred of traditional American institutions and the school of thought that American is in any way exceptional in any way. The King Bible was used because it was Martin Luther King Day — understandable. Lincoln’s, too, since modern thinking is that the Civil War was over slavery.
At least that is what they teach in schools nowadays. Yet, a more thorough and unbiased view of history reveals a much different truth.
History is oft written by the victors and this time is no different.
Politically, King was considered virulently liberal at the time. While some of King’s views were indeed similar to some modern-day conservative viewpoints, the idea that King was a closet conservative is shocking, and demonstrates how far left we as a society have come.
King was apolitical (he was neither Democrat nor Republican), and supported the notion of restitution for slavery, as well as other leftist causes like affirmative action and social programs that fostered racial equality. As such, his political action group received funding and support from the Soviet Union, as it served their purpose to instigate race conflict in the US, even if King was no communist. His theories of economic egalitarianism suited the communist’s needs for filling the role of expanding the power of the federal government over states’ rights.
Even King knew of the danger of the implications that his civil rights crusade was being used for communist infiltration, as did the FBI who investigated the matter. While, over time, the political group he founded became more and more involved in anti-American activities, King always rejected communism as morally vacuous. Unfortunately, his movement lived on even after he was gone as political tool of extreme leftism, and economic egalitarianism rather than free markets, and Barack Obama has taken on the mantle of that leftism.
This was the message sent with that Bible.
As for Lincoln, although he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, it wasn’t until after war started, and did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. Lincoln was not an abolitionist and said so on many occasions, although he did not support slavery. Pulitzer prize-winning author Eric Foner has written books on the subject of slavery and the Civil War, and has demonstrated the links between communism and the Civil War. Foner has shown that they are very similar in that they both were wars about federalism over states’ rights, not wars of minority rights. As a proponent of statism, Foner also has shown in his work the links between modern communism and the fight for states’ rights. He also talks about the modern civil rights movement and argues that Lincoln was a statist before he was an abolitionist.
Lincoln plunged the nation into expanding the war to increase the federal government’s power, not to free the slaves. In his inaugural address, Lincoln said:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
~ March 1861
When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, it did not apply to Union states that were slave states. It was an act designed to break the Confederacy in hopes that the slaves would rise up in arms and sow dissention and discord behind enemy lines. The abolition of slavery in the rebel states became a military objective, not one of moral consequence.
The legacy of Lincoln was not the freeing of slaves. Rather, it was establishing the Federal government’s supremacy over states’ rights, and was the real reason of the Civil War. He did not even mention the complete abolition of slavery until Gettysburg.
So when Obama holds and swears on King’s bible and Lincoln’s, he issuing a proclamation that he will hold true to the concepts of economic restitution for slavery, the supremacy of a statist federal government and collectivism. It is not about King and Lincoln, so much as it is about what they stood for.
Obama is far too educated to not to understand the significance of this, even if the American people are not.
Free subscription; unsubscribe any time. Connect with conservative, alternative media — we are “rendering the mainstream media useless” at TheBrennerBrief.com!
- ANALYSIS: Obama Subtly Incorporates Race in Inauguration (blackamericaweb.com)
- ANALYSIS: Obama Subtly Incorporates Race in Inauguration (mymajicdc.com)
- Doubling Up (manifoldgreatness.wordpress.com)
- Obama’s inaugural Bibles: the lonesome pair (thebrennerbrief.com)
- President Obama to Use Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln’s Bibles for Inaugural Ceremony (allhiphop.com)
- Presidents should not swear in on a Bible (richarddawkins.net)
- Obama must follow through on climate change challenge (thehill.com)
- Obama To Use MLK, Lincoln Bibles During Oath At Presidential Inauguration (newstalkcleveland.com)
- Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln and inspirational second inaugural addresses (examiner.com)
- ANALYSIS: Obama Makes History – Again (blackamericaweb.com)