What is Obama?

By Mychal Massie

We, to a greater or lesser extent, know who Obama is, but do we know what he is? Permit me to take a somewhat circuitous route to address the issue.

Let’s start with what he and his spouse are. They are the worst kind of racialists; they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit it, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

But that is who they are, not what he is. We must dig deeper to uncover what he is, not because it is particularly well hidden, but rather because to identify what he is people must be willing to accept truth that is uncomfortable to their inculcated ethos.

On his recent trip to Argentina, Obama’s response to a young person’s question during a quasi town hall type appearance unambiguously exposed what Obama is. He was asked a question about nonprofit community organizations and the necessity of attracting funding from both the public and private sector. The question was a mélange at best, although an American who holds to the traditions our founders set forth would have addressed the youth in the context of free-market capitalism.

Obama, however, responded: “So often in the past there has been a division between the left and the right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that has been a big debate. … Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works [for you].”

He continued by praising Cuba’s socialist system and dictator Raul Castro, expounding on Cuba’s free access to education and health care. He did not blame communism for the condition Cuba is in today; rather he blamed it on the economy not working. He concluded his comments arguing that a free market-based system “has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis” – which is simply another way of saying the State should take from those who earn and give to those who do not.

We can easily dissect Obama’s verbiage and conclude the absurdity of his response. The answer is not an “intellectual argument” nor is “America” a part of the “Americas.” America is a sovereign nation distinct unto itself, not a conglomerate of Third World countries. But that would be a topical addressment juxtaposed to examining the genesis from which his ideology springs.

What is Obama? He is a product of his inculcation. He is a product of Friedrich Nietzsche, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, et al. He is the spawn of the “God is Dead” movement, not from a theological position, rather from a stridency and willingness to live with the ramifications of that theory.

Obama’s response in essence said there is no right or wrong choice. There is only the choice that you make based upon what you perceive to be best for you. Albeit, all choice must have as its core “a social and moral and ethical and community basis.”

He, like his primogenitor, subscribes to secularism that when extended to its logical and systemic conclusion denies the existence of God. God is replaced with empirical reasoning. The problem with empirical reasoning is that it can only give you the facts; you must decide whether they are right or wrong for you based upon the metaphysical. Meta meaning “beyond” and physical meaning “nature,” ergo despite what one sees, they must ultimately make their decisions based upon what they cannot see. When the layers are removed and all the pontificating is done, Obama is someone who subscribes to theory but rejects the absolute.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a man I have long looked upon as a mentor, is one of the most renowned biblical apologists of the modern era, if not all time. He states that “[those like Obama] repudiate the faith upon which the nation, [i.e., America] was founded. They talk about rights and human rights but they seldom talk about the right to be human. How can we talk about human rights when we don’t talk about the right to be human?”

Obama is a conflicted contradiction who adheres to a theory that has failed in every society in which it has been introduced. He is a person whose entire orthodoxy is based upon the premise that he knows more than God, and with his rejection of proof to the contrary he is driven to advance a heterodoxy of failure.

He is one who has rejected truth and replaced it with a vain attempt to change the ramifications of his flawed theory. He is confused, lost and “hellward” bound. He is a person unable to make sound decisions for his own life and yet he has convinced people he is able to make decisions for them, which explains in large part why his administration has been the model of failure.

Media wishing to interview Mychal Massie, please contact [email protected].

Leave a Comment