Obama’s New Theocracy

The depiction of Barack Obama as the new, secular, American messiah began with his full approval during his presidential campaign and led directly to the spectacle of his coronation/inauguration. In what can only be described as a delusional, self-righteous pronouncement of himself as the new messiah (“the chosen one”), Obama has stated that:

“We are the ones we‘ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” [emphasis added]

The following video on the worship of Obama by his politico-religious cult was featured on the Obama campaign website:

But this cult extends far further than Obama’s devout worshippers and includes major portions of the mainstream media whose apologetics for Obama appear to have few bounds. For example, on the June 6th edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” we find Matthews stating the following about Obama:

The question now is whether the president we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he will be honoring what happened on D-Day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil.

In response, Newsweek columnist Evan Thomas then actually claims that “Obama stands above the country, above the world. He is sort of God.”

Since taking office and to help establish his new, secular theocracy, Obama has greatly expanded the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (see here and here), originally created from a program by Bill Clinton and then revved up by George W. Bush as the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The result will be to create an even greater threat to participating faith-based, private charities, who will lose their independence. If charities become dependent on government funding, such support will likely come with politically correct mandates in order to qualify, including prohibitions on hirings outside their religion. As reported earlier by CNN:

[There are] separation-of-church-and-state advocates and human-rights organizations that say the government must constitutionally compel these organizations to follow nondiscrimination laws if they accept federal funding. Anything less, they say, would at best be a violation of church-state separation and at worst an implicit endorsement of discrimination.”

[President Obama] is under heavy pressure from those who support faith-based hiring in these enterprises to not just eliminate it,” said Ira C. Lupu, a professor at The George Washington University Law School. “Others say that hiring on the basis of religion is discriminatory and that the government should never subsidize that. As a political matter, there is a lot of pressure from both sides.”

During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that:

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion,” Obama said in the July 1 speech at the East Side Community Ministry. . . .

At Pastor Rick Warren’s presidential forum in August, then-presidential candidate Obama said a distinction should be made between how federally funded groups hire within their own mission and how they hire when it comes to secular charitable work. “The devil’s in the details,” he said then. “What we do want to make sure of is that as a general principle we’re not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are being taken, that are taking place.”

In other words, to qualify for federal funding, a faith-based charity must conform to Obama’s politico-statist agenda, hence ending their being both voluntary and faith-based.

The solution instead is to strip the presidency of its immense unconstitutional powers (see Recarving Rushmore, by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Ivan Eland), eliminate government welfare programs altogether, and leave such work to faith-based organizations that have the demonstrated track record of actually helping people (see here, here, here, here, and here).