Obama is a 'useful idiot' to Islam & America's enemies (Part 4)

By Bob Kemp

Mr. Obama's attack on our civil liberties will not be open attacks, obvious to all. No, true to his deceitful nature and that of his minion's, our civil liberties will be stripped from every American regardless of where you stand on issues. The Obama administration is hard at work even as you read this article to disguise their attack on civil liberties as laws to be passed, in the best interest of the American people. There are many examples' to consider, but I will discuss only a few for now for the sake of brevity. We will see just how so much of these changes in law will have a domino effect, spreading over into other seemingly unrelated areas of our lives.

Let's start with Mr. Obama's support of abortion. I have written on this issue in the past at length, so I will not go into the moral issues concerning this. Knowing that Mr. Obama is THE most liberal person ever to occupy the White House, and knowing that one of the first things he did was start sending taxpayer money to Mexico to fund abortions, let's look at the broader implications of all this.

Mr. Obama said of himself when he was in Germany on the Campaign trail in 2008 that he was a "citizen of the world." He claimed no allegiance to the United States at all. By his own declaration, he aligned himself with other globalist entities that seek to establish a one-world government, ruled by one person, and at the same instant against every patriotic American. One of the goals of the globalist is to reduce the world population from the current six billion inhabitants, to something more manageable. Abortion is a facilitator of this. It is much easier and less expensive to abort a child, than to house and care for an unwanted child. Mr. Obama's voting record on abortion reflects his view on the sanctity of life, even if a child is born viable due to a botched abortion. Mr. Obama is not concerned with the civil rights and liberties (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) of the unborn any more than he is concerned with violating your rights or mine. He wants to deprive the unwanted unborn of any opportunity to take their first breath and he is willing to pass whatever law he can to facilitate his pro-abortion agenda, and surrounds himself with people in his administration that share his views.

On the issue of abortion, let's consider one of Mr. Obama's nominations. Her name is Professor Dawn Johnsen. Mr. Obama has nominated Johnsen to direct the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. In this position, Johnsen will be responsible for interpretations of federal law key to government offices, including the White House. Johnsen holds very liberal views on abortion. Johnsen is a former legal director for the pro-abortion group NARAL and the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. Johnsen once compared pregnancy to slavery!! This can be found in a brief she filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1989 Webster case if you need to look it up. When it comes to his appointees, Mr. Obama first considers the persons ethical and political views, and if they line up with his, before he considers their qualifications to office, or if they have paid their taxes!

Mr. Obama views an unwanted unborn child as a liability and punishment, not considering the potential and promise that each child possesses. By sending taxpayer money to fund abortions to not only Mexico, but European nations as well, Mr. Obama is exporting his administration of death against the voices of those of us that do not want our taxes to pay for abortions. It also reinforces his vision of a one world government in charge of our daily lives.

The liberals, Socialists and Marxists that control his puppet strings are only too happy about all this, and Mr. Obama is only too happy to accommodate them if it will keep him in power over us.

To ensure that every woman that demands to have her child murdered within her womb will have the abortion procedure available to them, Mr. Obama wants to rescind the Conscience Protection rule for the Department of Health and Human Services. Currently, healthcare professionals that object to abortion on moral and religious grounds are protected from performing abortions. Once the Conscience Protection rule is repealed, they will lose that protection, and, under the law, be FORCED to participate in and provide abortions. The Obama administration posted its intent on the federal website February 27th.

It seems that Mr. Obama believes that if you are a health care professional, you have no rights at all to refuse to conduct an abortion. What about the rights of the child? We have come full circle in America from a time when abortions were illegal and performed only by people that had no conscience about such things. Now America is a nation where abortion is legal, and a person of conscience has no choice about performing abortions if that person wants to remain in the medical profession. How ironic that our government will protect the right of a conscientious objector to serve their nation in a non-combatant position, yet force a medical conscientious objector to take life!

The larger implications are worth considering. When Massachusetts passed a law making it legal for same sex couples to adopt, the Catholic Church was forced to get out of the adoption business in that state because of the churches view and opposition of such a chosen lifestyle. If the Conscience Protection rule is repealed, Catholic hospitals across the nation will be forced to close. Hundreds of thousands of medical professionals will suddenly be unemployed due to this. Think for a minute also about the additional hundreds of thousands of perfectly qualified medical professionals that will stop practicing their chosen field in an effort to avoid being forced to murder children at the governments command. Unemployment in America will surely increase dramatically beyond what it already is, adding to the throngs of the unemployed we already have, and it will all be due to Mr. Obama, his lack of morals and his flawed vision.

Mr. Obama is ignoring what the U.S Constitution has to say about this issue and is overstepping his bounds. Our beloved Constitution left the regulation of abortion to the states, not the federal government.

The First Amendment was adopted to guarantee freedom of religion, which includes the right of healthcare professionals not to be forced to perform procedures that violate their religious beliefs. In the case of Davis v. Beacon, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), the word "religion" was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. To be brief, the court determined that the government cannot dictate to an individual how he practices his religious beliefs or apply restrictions on how a person's religious beliefs may lead a person to observe those beliefs at any time.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been around for many years. It is basically an international treaty which hands over many of the rights parents have been given by God to an international entity. Under the UNCRC, the state could determine things such as where your child goes to school, how you can discipline your child, what church, if any, you may take your child to, what your child can read and whether a parent has the right to home school their child. The state would have the authority to make such determinations 'in the best interest of the child.' The UNCRC was approved by the Clinton (another globalist) administration, but stalled in the Senate due to opposition to such a bill. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) urged in February for the adoption of the UNCRC.

However, efforts are being made by two U.S. legislators to pass an amendment that would guarantee the rights of parents to raise their children without government interference. The legislators are Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R.-Mich.) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.). Hoekstra's office said the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."

People that hold to such extreme opinions like only a child's parents have the right to raise a child in the way they see fit could be labeled as extreme right-wingers and be considered enemies of the state if you follow the logic of the Office of Homeland Security. In April when the DHS Assessment of Rightwing Extremism was accidentally leaked to the public, many alarms were raised by conservatives & Christians. If any reasonable person reads the assessment which was authored by the DHS, it becomes very apparent that whoever wrote this thing are the real loony tunes.

For example, under "Key Findings" the assessment states "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." I'm sorry, but I see no reason to believe this to be true. Only someone that watches too much conspiracy TV would say such a thing in the first place. The report goes on to say, "Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

The report continues by stating rightwing extremists have been galvanized in the election of the first African American president and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members.

Now in case you're wondering just who are the "Rightwing Extremists," This reports defines them in this way; "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The federal assessment also states, "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

So let me get this straight; anyone that doesn't like Mr. Obama for any reason can be labeled a rightwing extremist. Anyone that disagrees with the federal government on any issue is seen as a rightwing threat. If you are a thinking person and have any ideas that differ from the federal government, you could be considered an enemy of the state. A person who opposes abortion or illegal immigration is a threat to the greater good of America. Military veterans returning from combat are to be watched carefully because they are considered a risk. We had a saying when I was in the Air Force. It went like this, 'The government can tell me what to say, but they cannot tell me what to think.'

Well paint me a rightwing extremist because I do oppose abortion and illegal immigration. I guess that also makes me a racist. Or perhaps the fact that I oppose Mr. Obama, not because he is bi-racial, but because he is pro-abortion, among other things, makes me a person to be watched by the government because I write for Renew America and am a Christian. I wish the DHS would pay me a visit; it would give me more writing material!

The entire assessment reads like it was written by the thought police. It is just full of ridiculous and asinine ideas that have no foundation unless you want to really stretch the truth in order to try and prove a point. The assessment points out as a recent example of rightwing extremism the man that shot 3 police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on April 4 of this year. The report states "The alleged gunman's reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled once world government." I would submit that the man probably already had a few encounters with the law previous to this, and was a person that held no respect for the life or rights of anyone. He was simply a desperate criminal trying to run from the law, nothing more and nothing less.

What this assessment states in essence is that if you disagree with the federal government and the Obama administration, you are an enemy of the state and should be watched carefully. You are a person of independent thought, and those independent thoughts could get you into trouble with the thought police of the federal government. Maybe Mr. Obama needs a thought police czar! I wonder if the Catholics that oppose Mr. Obama going to Notre Dame should be worried. Let me be as clear as I can about this, whoever wrote this assessment and whoever approved it for publication, should be fired and banned from ever working for the federal government of the United States again. The assessment violates every Americans constitutional rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom to believe what a person wants to believe without being brainwashed to believe what the federal government wants them to believe. This is typical liberal practice. The liberals want everyone to not only be tolerant of their viewpoints, opinions, and lifestyles, but they will go a step further to legislate that anyone that opposes them has no rights to the same things. The writers of this assessment are what I would call government extremists.

Early on in his new administration, Mr. Obama did a power grab by wanting to place the U.S. Census Bureau under the control of the White House. Up to this point, it had always been under the control of the Commerce Department. But Mr. Obama wants to make certain that control of the government in the future rests with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Congressional Republicans are concerned the 2010 census will be distorted. The current House has 435 seats which are divided among the states in proportion to their population, which is determined by the decennial census. States with more people get more seats in the U.S. House. What this means is that a state with a larger illegal immigrant population could gain more House seats as long as the Census Bureau finds the illegal aliens and counts them. It also means the illegal population in the U.S. during a census year has the potential to alter the regional and philosophical balance of power in Congress by redrawing the Congressional District lines. This is nothing less than a power grab by the White House.

H.R. 45 is another blatant attack on the rights of Americans. The Second amendment guarantees the right of every American to own a firearm. What H.R. 45 does is it requires everyone that wants to be a gun owner to be licensed by the state before they can legally own a firearm. In other words, the federal government wants to know what you have in the way of firearms and how many. It makes it unlawful for anyone to sale a firearm to someone that is not licensed by the state, regardless if the seller is an individual or a dealer. Yet you can sale a car to anyone whether they have a driver's license and are a legal resident of this country or not!!

The Washington Times reported on April 19, 2009 that the Obama administration is "using the increased publicity surrounding drug cartels in Mexico as an opportunity to push for reinstating the ban on semi-assault weapons."

The ban expired in 2004, and there is a good reason it was allowed to expire; Congress allowed it to expire because they found it was a bad law.

According to Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation, "It was enacted...on the basis of saying these were machine guns. That's a lie. They were rapid fire. That's a lie. They made bigger holes. That's a lie. There were more powerful. That's a lie. It was lie after lie after lie. Congress found it out. That's why they let it expire, and lies that are found out don't get re-enacted."

The Obama administration is also guilty of stating and repeating lies about the number of guns that are smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. They have stated repeatedly that 90% of all weapons confiscated in Mexico come from the U.S. Here are the facts according to a recent Fox News analysis. Please keep in mind that these statistics represent only the guns that Mexico returns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Of those 11,000 guns, 6,000 could be traced, and 5,100 of those were linked to the United States. The 90 percent figure excludes the 5,000 guns that could not be traced, and also leaves out the 18,000 guns from Mexican crime scenes that were not sent to the United States because it was obvious the weapons came from somewhere else." If you do the math you will see that only 17% of those gun's came from the U.S.

The Washington Post repeated the lie of Mr. Obama when he was in Mexico with the 90% figure, obviously showing no interest or initiative to investigate for themselves. Now that's liberal journalism at its usual day to day business. The bottom line to all this is that the criminals that want guns will always get guns and they will get them illegally for illegal use. Law abiding citizens should not be punished for the acts of the law breakers. It is true that the U.S has shipped many weapons to Mexico to help their military and police in their fight against the drug cartels. Over the past six years, about 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted, taking their weapons with them. Maybe Mexico needs a DHS Assessment Threat written about those guys! Armed Mexican soldier deserters sound like a more plausible threat than unarmed U.S. soldiers.

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for legal sale in the United States. In an interview with Fox News, Head stated that those weapons are coming from places like Guatemala and China. They get diverted from the military.

Also while in Mexico, Mr. Obama voiced his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses "firearms trafficking." The treaty states that if you reload your own ammunition, you may be engaged in 'Illicit Manufacturing' of ammunition. The treaty, known as the "Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Material." The treaty can be googled and viewed on-line. The treaty clearly states ammo reloaders that are not licensed by the state are 'Illicit Manufacturers.'

On April 30, the U.S. House approved federal "hate crimes" bill H.R. 1913. This bill will provide special protections to homosexuals while at the same time leaving Christian ministers open to prosecution if their teachings can be linked to any subsequent offense by anyone against a homosexual. The vote passed 249-175. The bill places sexual orientation in a special protected class under federal law. The potential for a Minister, Rabbi, or even an Islamic Cleric to be arrested for preaching against sexually deviant behavior is a real possibility. This is another example of "thought crimes," of which everyone is guilty. I have to know if Perez Hilton could be prosecuted under this new law for all the hateful things he has said about Miss California's Carrie Prejean. Or, is this a one way street?

As reported on WorldNetDaily, "Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) introduced a striking argument: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913, she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913."

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "The Anti-Christian Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives has acted today to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose Bible speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible.

"A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

"This Democrat-controlled Congress has now elevated pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men to the level of protection of that already given African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law," she said.

This law is a step toward restricting free speech and silencing religious teaching. Its design is to silence morally, medically, and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The 14th Amendment already ensures that victims of violent crimes receive equal protection under the law. H.R. 1913 is another attack on our freedoms by the liberal's in an effort to more closely align our laws with those of Europe and Canada.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg is only too happy to align herself with Mr. Obama's globalist agenda and help strip away national sovereignty. She recently spoke at Ohio State University's School of Law. Ginsburg said, "Why shouldn't we look at the wisdom of a judge from abroad?" Ok...time for American law 101. Justice Kinsburg, ALL judges (you included), take an oath "to support this Constitution."

All four of the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative judges oppose citing foreign laws or decisions in ruling on U.S. cases.

Ginsburg even went as far as to voice disdain for what she sees as a failure of the U.S. to cite the Canadian Supreme Court. But she did not mention its judicial activism in legalizing same-sex marriage!

Ginsburg claims that our failure to cite foreign decisions has resulted in diminished influence for the U.S. Supreme Court. Sounds like she is only interested in building up her own reputation overseas as a U.S. Supreme Court Judge.

Ginsburg's idealology is in alignment with Mr. Obama. This can be seen in his choice of Harold Koh, former dean of the Yale Law School, to be the State Department's legal advisor. Other lawyers quote Koh as stating in 2007, "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States." Sharia is the Muslim law which, among other extremes, allows the stoning of a woman to death for the "crime" of being raped!! Sharia law is now a reality in England due to its growing Muslim population and liberal Socialist form of government. Sharia courts in England are permitted to decide cases of domestic violence. Under Sharia law, Muslim men have the right to beat disobedient wives!!

As reported in the Fordham Law Review, Koh stated he is a trans-nationalist. A trans-nationalist is someone that believes the "living" Constitution allows it to import international law into U.S. courts in order to place the U.S. under a global legal system. A thorough examination of all of Mr. Obama's appointments will reveal their like-mindedness when it comes to many issues, globalist or trans-nationalist included.

Mr. Obama calls himself a "citizen of the world." He has pledged that the U.S. needs to "rejoin the world community." I never knew we left it. I thought we had been leading it. At his inauguration, he said U.S. power "does not entitle us to do as we please." In between bowing to King Abdullah and handing over U.S. sovereignty, he spent much of his time apologizing to the world for our arrogance and selfishness. Yes, Mr. Obama, probably is more a citizen of the world than a U.S. citizen since he cannot produce a legitimate U.S. birth certificate. He seems to possess a conflict of interest when it comes to national sovereignty and whether he is a Christian or not. So do not be surprised as he leads the U.S. into closer and closer alignments with the EU and hands over more and more of our national sovereignty to other nations.

Finally, at the request of the White House, Georgetown University hid religious symbols to accommodate Mr. Obama when he visited there in April. This story has been confirmed by Fox News.

The White House wanted an inscription of the name of Jesus covered up before Mr. Obama gave a speech. The monogram IHS, which represents the name of Jesus, is usually mounted above the stage in Gaston Hall where Mr. Obama spoke. It was covered with what looked like black wood. In keeping with White House requests, Georgetown covered all Christian symbols and signage behind the Gaston Hall stage for Mr. Obama's visit. American flags were placed there for the cameras. It seems that Mr. Obama has a problem having the American flag in the same shot with the name of Jesus!!

This reminds me of the Pharaoh's for ancient Egypt. When a new Pharaoh came to power, they would often times order that any and all references to his predecessor be removed from all public buildings. Ya think Mr. "citizen of the world" Obama has a Pharaoh complex? Hmm.

Georgetown is a private Catholic school, much like Notre Dame. Do you think Mr. Obama will ask Notre Dame to cover the enormous mosaic of Jesus at the end of the field to be covered? Will he insist on the statues of Christ to be covered also?

If you had the misfortune of Mr. Obama coming to your home or church, would you cover any religious symbols just so this "Chrisitan" man could be more comfortable? I find it interesting that the name of Jesus is very comforting to a real Christian. Yet, it is an offense to non-believers. Someone tell me again Mr. Obama is a Christian. I real Christian would not have any concern at all about being in the presence of the name of our Lord and Savior. However, if you find the name of Jesus to be offensive and a distraction, then perhaps you would want it removed or covered up. Go ahead Mr. Obama, you can cover up the name of Jesus on buildings and have it removed from the public square, but there is nothing you can do to erase it from the heart of a Christian. Like it or not, He is greater than you.

In the final part of this five part article, I will show how Mr. Obama is weakening our nation's ability to protect us from attacks both foreign and domestic. I realize this is a lot of material to cover and I appreciate your willingness to stick with me. I believe though that by the time I am finished, you will have a much better understanding of where we as a nation are headed and what you can expect from the Obama administration.

© Bob Kemp