This is a great read




http://obamaandcommunism.blogspot.com/2012/10/whole-nations-will-be-annihilated-obama_22.html


Error #1: Obama and Atheism

“In such a doctrine [of Communism], as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God...”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 9

“I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth...I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt.”9—Barack Obama, March 27, 2004


Barack Obama, fathered by one atheist10 and mothered by another,11 has given what can only be described as a vexed public face to his relationship with God. He has publicly and repeatedly (and intentionally?) “botched” the Declaration of Independence's affirmation that men are endowed with inalienable rights, not by anyone, but specifically by their Creator. Although sheer political prudence would have dictated that even a consummate atheist not make such an obvious omission—and multiple times!—this omission makes a perfect fit with the Communist notion that the state and not God is the origin of all rights and gifts.
Obama's other hostilities towards God are well-known, such as his failure to mention God in the presidential address for Thanksgiving Day (the very purpose of which day, as one commentator notes, is to return thanks specifically to God,12 his desire to remove the White House Nativity scene at Christmas,13 and his visit to Georgetown university, where Obama or one of his group ensured that the nominally Catholic university covered up the Holy Name of Jesus while Obama delivered his speech.
Obama also belongs to the political party which only recently featured the gross and shocking spectacle of a chorus of “No!” voice votes answering the question, whether the Democrats would like to restore the Name of God to their official public platform? No, many of them replied, shades of a similar “No!” shouted some 2,000 years prior in the praetorium of Pontius Pilate. But we can find a much more detailed account of Obama's theology in his wide-ranging 2004 interview on matters religious with reporter Colleen Falsani. In particular we will examine Obama's statements on sin, prayer, Heaven, dogma, Christ, and other religions.
Turning first to Obama's notion of sin, let us consider his answer to the interviewer's query:

FALSANI: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
FALSANI: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.”14

Sin, says Obama, means “being out of alignment” with what Obama values. This has two possible meanings. It means either that sin occurs when anyone at all is out of alignment with his own personal values, or else that sin for everyone means being out of alignment with Obama's values. The former entails pure relativism. If Obama values abortion and I despise it, for instance, then if Obama decides to reject the legality of bludgeoning babies in the back of the head while I embrace it, both of us have “sinned” by misappropriating our respective but contradictory “values” (This raises the interesting question of whether Obama committed sin recently by reneging on his once-publicly stated “valuing” of marriage as consisting exclusively of the union of one man with one woman).
But the latter implication entails something other than relativism; it entails self-deification. On this reading, sin, not just for Obama, but for everyone, means being misaligned relative to Obama's values. Thus if you believe that ripping open an unborn baby's head and vacuuming his brains from his skull is a monstrous crime, which it certainly is, Obama would hold that you sin by doing so, since you have strayed from Obama's values. As Thaddeus Kozinski has pointed out relative to this interview, instead of God's laws providing the standard of morality, Obama's personal beliefs occupy that place.15
Obama's subsequent remarks on prayer lend further color to the accuracy of this second, more totalitarian, and frightening reading of Obama's statement. Mark his answer (italics added):

FALSANI:Do you pray often?
OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do.
Its’ (sic) not formal, me getting on my knees.
I think I have an ongoing conversation with God.
I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m
doing, why am I doing it...

FALSANI: What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned
spiritually?
OBAMA: I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself. And that
can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids,
or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I’m
recognizing them and exchanging a good word.”16


As Kozinski notes, prayer, for Obama, is having a conversation with himself.17 And though Kozinski adds that this answer is not wholly incompatible with a sort of prayed “examination of conscience” whereby one listens for divine inspiration as to the rectitude of one's path, “nevertheless, [this is] not what Obama says.”18 Obama likewise feels most spiritually centered when he is being true to himself. Regarding Obama's ideas about sin and prayer, then, whereas most Christians or even theists would define these concepts primarily with reference to God, Obama repeatedly defines them with reference to Obama. If many conservative commentators have noted a not-very-subtle and disturbing trend towards self-idolatry in Obama's public words and deeds, be reassured: your disturbance is evidence, not of paranoia, but of sanity. Or to put it more accurately, Obama appears to have ascribed divine attributes to himself rather than to God.
The interview also includes Obama's comments on the afterlife. When asked if he believes in Heaven as a post-mortem spiritual realm, aside from a syrupy digression about how it's “a little piece of heaven” to tuck his daughters in at night and see their absorption of his values—the transgression of which is “sinful,” you will recall—Obama offers this answer (italics added):

“What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I
don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very
strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter,
the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”19

Notice the answer very carefully. When asked if he believes in Heaven as a place of after-death reward, which is what all or most recognizably Christian religions believe, which is what Christ Himself spoke of,20 and which is precisely what his ostensibly Christian beliefs would give him knowledge about, Obama expresses ignorance of what happens after death and indifference as to whether the reward is after death “or in the here and now” (italics added). What does Pius XI identify as one of the errors of Russia? Let us recall it (n. 22, italics added):

“[Russian Communism] considers religion as "the opiate of the people" because
the principles of religion which speak of a life beyond the grave dissuade the
proletariat from the dream of a Soviet paradise which is of this world

Let us consider Obama's further remarks on the nature of faith and dogma. In Catholic teaching, a dogma is an unchangeable truth revealed by God Himself. Everything which God chooses to reveal to us must be true, both because He cannot be ignorant of the truth (He is all-knowing) and because He cannot lie or deceive us (He is all-truthful). Therefore it is not only reasonable to believe in dogmas, once established that God has truly revealed them, but it would also be exceptionally unreasonable to doubt whether an all-truthful Being is in fact telling the truth. What does Obama have to say about faith, doubt, and dogma? Observe his answer:

“...I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of
dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that
implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth...I’m a big believer in tolerance
[Note: Except for unborn babies and Catholics who don't want to fund immoral
contraceptive practices. But let that pass for a moment]. I think that religion at it’s
( sic) best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in
the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their
understanding.”21

Taking this answer apart, we find that Obama is “suspicious” of the idea that an all-knowing Being..wait for it...knows all things! Continuing his theme of substituting man for God, Obama justifies this suspicion of dogma and certainty by appealing to the limited understanding of people. But this is precisely the point of dogma; when God Himself tells us that something is true, we no longer operate in the realm of the “limited understanding” of human beings. God, an infinite and unlimited Being, is not limited in His understanding. Obama therefore appears to delineate faith in precisely the contrary sense to its true notion. Instead of faith being—as Catholics hold—the certain and unwavering assent to something revealed by an all-truthful Being, Obama celebrates doubt—and a “big dose” of it—as being an integral component of religion. But why bother with a religion at all, unless it actually clears up your doubts? Obama's religion evidently does not. As an aside, let it be noted that our later examination of Obama's many examples of dogmatic liberal intolerance will expose his “suspicion” of dogmatic intolerance as laughable hypocrisy. Obama expresses no real doubt about the “certainty” of the liberal dogma of “choice,” for instance; he apparently holds it as certainly true that any unwanted baby can and should be liable to bloody extermination, even if that baby has managed to escape the womb alive.
The rest of the interview contains similar errors and various syrupy postmodern platitudes about religion. For Obama, Christ is merely “an historical figure for me,” a “bridge between God and man,” someone that “serves as that means of us reaching something higher,” and also “a wonderful teacher.”22 Notably absent from this answer is any mention of the fact that Christ is the eternal and omnipotent God, co-eternal with the Father, and the eternal Word made flesh. Instead, Obama makes Christ sound like some sort of New Age yogic guru, helping us “reach something higher” (however high that might be). He also echoes that strange, self-contradictory modern idea of the world's religions all being “different paths to the same goal.” He claims in one answer that he has a deep faith, “draw from the Christian faith,” yet grew up in Hawaii “where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences,” also had an agnostic father and a Moslem grandfather, and intellectually has “drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.”23 He adds that “there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”24 Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? It sounds like he tried to give a nod to almost every disparate belief system which he could fit into the space of one interview answer. Of course the problem with this suspension of the principle of non-contradiction is that the world's religions cannot all be different paths to the same goal, since some religions (like Catholicism) affirm truths (like Christ's divinity and His unique identity as the Savior) which others (like Judaism and Islam) vehemently deny. To say that these are all paths to the same place is like saying that baby formula and an abortionist's knife to the back of the head are merely two different “paths” to preserving a baby's life.
It might be objected that Obama has publicly stated that he is a Christian. If Obama's professed Christianity implies that he believes in God, shouldn't we take him at his word? No, we certainly should not. Obama has stated that he is Christian, but Obama also has a nasty habit of lying, and repeatedly, as when he told the pope that he promised to work towards decreasing the number of abortions,25 while having actually worked tirelessly to increase the number of abortions by reversing the Mexico City policy, imposing the HHS mandate, and impoverishing the country with multiple trillion dollar deficits (don't the “catholics for Obama” folk cite poverty-causing economic policies as a factor in increasing abortions?).26 Obama also lied to Cardinal Dolan (regarding the HHS mandate),27 and he publicly stated at Notre Dame that he wished to introduce a “sensible conscience clause” before introducing a very insensible non-conscience clause.28 Therefore the fact that Obama has publicly stated something gives us no indication at all that his statement is actually true. It is also notable that Obama's infamous pastor, Jeremiah Wright, reported that Obama's friend Eric Whitaker attempted to bribe him by offering $150,000 to keep quiet prior to the 2008 election. According to Wright, Obama himself visited and criticized his pastor, telling Wright that his problem was that he “[has] to tell the truth.”29 Strange criticism coming from the lips of a purportedly “honest” man!


Error #2: Obama and False Messianic Devotion

“The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. A pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labor impregnates all its doctrine and activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous and contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 8 (italics added)

“This president [Obama] has brought us out of the dark and into the light.”30—Michelle Obama

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”31—Evan Thomas, Newsweek (italics added)

“For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets...Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him...Take heed you be not seduced; for many will come in My Name, saying, I am he; and the time is at hand: go ye not therefore after them.”32—Our Lord Jesus Christ

“...this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg33...This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.”34—Chris Matthews, MSNBC (italics added)


Many of the infamous totalitarians of last and this century, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and the like, belonged to political systems which sought to eradicate all recognition of God. But such tyrants also seemed to recognize, at least implicitly, that men naturally reason from the contingent, changing, and finite beings of this world to the existence of the necessary, unchanging, and infinite Being Who sustains them. This happens regardless of what their governments may tell them, and thus all famous totalitarian regimes have included a state-run cult, generally built on the leader, which attempts to replace the citizens' legitimate recognition of God with the idolatrous deification of the government ruler.
With this in mind, we turn to the fact that Obama's emergence and presence in American politics has ignited the sort of pseudo-Messianic enthusiasm which is unparalleled outside of Communist and other totalitarian regimes. Obama's wife tells us that he has brought us from darkness into the light. A media personality confesses, on air, that Obama's speech sends a thrill running up his leg. Obama surrounds himself with sycophants like Valerie Jarrett, who says that Obama's ineffable brilliance simply renders him “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”35 Huffington Post writer Gary Hart says that Obama “is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians,” and Ezra Klein searches vainly to find an apt way of expressing his belief in Obama's superiority over Christ: “[Obama] is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh...”36 Evan Thomas of Newsweek dispenses altogether with subtlety and plainly compares Obama to God. And actress Halle Berry shows a devotion to Obama's desires which would make a saint of anyone who showed a similar devotion to God's commandments, telling us that she will “do whatever he says to do...I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”37 Wherever Obama has gone, he seems to find a pliable and suitably idolatrous horde ready and willing to fall down and adore before him.
Obama himself not only does not discourage this disgusting display of semi-idolatry, but he seems actively to encourage and embrace it himself, as when he assured us that with his 2008 nomination as the Democratic candidate for president, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”38 Further still, one recalls his scarcely believable 2008 comment on a light from above which will enlighten voters about making the right electoral pick:

“So I am going to try to be so persuasive in the 20 minutes or so that I speak that by the time this is over, a light will shine down from somewhere. It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack.”39

Speaking prior to Obama's inauguration, Pat Buchanan summarized this man well: “He does have a...a heightened sense of himself, our next president.”40 I nominate Buchanan's remark for first prize in the “understatement of the decade” contest.
What is it that sustains and explains this bizarre and incredible quasi-deification of Barack Obama? Pius XI explains it by pointing out how Communism succeeds in overrunning a society: “It can surprise no one that the Communistic fallacy should be spreading in a world already to a large extent de-Christianized” (n. 16). Obama saw that, in his own words, America is “no longer a Christian nation,” and he took that and ran with it.
American society, like many Western societies, has practically speaking rejected the divinity and kingship of Jesus Christ. It is true that the United States lays claim to many tens of millions of Catholics as well as a substantial Protestant population, but the society itself, in the leaders it elects and in the policies which it tolerates or approves via those electoral votes, bears no recognizable resemblance to a genuinely Christian nation. Abortion on demand, contraception funded by “health care” programs, efforts to legalize and legitimize sodomy as “marriage,” a gargantuan pornography industry, a devastating and almost unbelievable number of divorces, out-of-wedlock births, and premarital cohabitation, a procession of television, cinematic, musical, and other purported “entertainment” industries which thrive by turning out a steady stream of shockingly blasphemous, filthy, and immoral content (and have plenty of viewers who consume it)...the most wildly liberal and heterodox of pre-1950's Christians would have recoiled in abject horror from this abominably unchristian nightmare. Having rejected Christ, but being unable to deny their need for a savior to rescue them from the mess in which they find themselves, Obama's cohort of fans naturally seek their savior in someone other than Christ. Onto the scene comes a man who essentially promises to provide what many of them want: abortion and contraception for the sɛҳuąƖly profligate masses, “marital” rights for the sodomites and their sympathizers, and a perpetual, government-funded, socialist lifestyle, not just for those legitimately in need of assistance, but also for the able-bodied but lazy who abdicate their obligation to make a living for themselves by demanding a government sugar daddy.
Obama, studied in Alinsky's tactics, knows how to make vice and wickedness sound reasonable and appealing. Stabbing babies in the back of the head is “choice” which helps our daughters “fulfill their dreams.” Preventing the birth of babies by immorally interfering with an act ordered to that end is “preventative health care for women,” opposition to which indicates the presence of a “war” against them. Those who practice disgusting unnatural vices ought to be allowed “rights” to “love” whom they wish. And those who achieve financial success within a capitalistic system ought to have the fruits of their success robbed from them by government parasites in order that they might “pay their fair share,” since, as Obama informs us, “at a certain point you've made enough money”41 (“enough” to be determined by Obama, whose multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded vacations42 are evidently not yet “enough” for him). For many thoughtless members of the populace, this man is the answer to all their foul desires, and one need not wonder that people are ready to bow down and adore. Adolf Hitler, perhaps revealing something of the means by which he sustained his own demonic regime, has been quoted as having stated the following: “How fortunate for governments, that the people they administer don't think.” And how fortunate for Mr. Obama as well.


Error #3: Obama and Anti-Catholicism

“Communism is by its nature anti-religious. It considers religion as "the opiate of the people"...”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 22

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people...as a way to explain their frustrations.43—Barack Obama, April 2008


With his penchant for sloganeering, Obama or someone associated with his administration evidently coined the phrase “war on women” to describe the Catholic Church's desire not to be forced to subsidize immorality. In Obama's world, if the Church refuses to fund sin and immorality, the Church is “warring” against women and “forcing” them to pay for contraception. Analogously, this is bit like an impoverished bank robber breaking into a bank, robbing the bank tellers at gunpoint, and then denouncing a refusal to hand over the money as engaging in a “war on bank robbers”: “By refusing to be robbed, you are forcing me to keep being poor!” In reality no one is “forcing” women to pay for contraception, since—pace Obama—contraception is actually not like food and water in comprising an essential tool for human survival. Women do not have to use contraception at all; indeed, they must not use it if they wish to avoid eternal damnation, since willful use of contraception is gravely immoral (see another of Pius XI's encyclicals, Casti Connubii, for a thorough explanation as to why).
But this incident merely crystallizes Obama's own “war on Catholics,” plentifully in evidence throughout his reign. The HHS mandate is one in a list of such hostilities waged by Obama against the Catholic Church, as with his acceptance of a controversial invite to speak and receive an honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame, his appointment of the bigoted anti-Catholic Harry Knox,44 and his use of dubiously self-described Catholics to exploit division between real and nominal members of the Church. The recent Democratic National Convention featured among its speakers a nominally Catholic nun who, despite her ostensible membership in a Church which tells us that abortion is a grave evil, stated that the question of whether abortion should be outlawed is “beyond my pay grade.”45 Kathleen Sebelius, whose bishop instructed her not to receive Holy Communion given her obstinate perseverance in public, scandalous, and evil support of abortion,46 is Obama's HHS secretary. Joe Biden, another nominal Catholic infamous for his public rejection of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, is Obama's vice president. Fr. Michael Pfleger, a self-described Catholic and a priest, is Obama's friend,47 though Pfleger recently garnered attention after his remarks threatening to renounce Catholicism if removed from his pastorship earned him a suspension from Cardinal Francis George.48 Obama also nominated Sonia Sotomayor, another nominal Catholic, as one of his two Supreme Court picks, though Sotomayor won the praise of the infamous NARAL as a “sound choice” (re: likely committed supporter of child-massacre) for the Court.49
Obama surrounds himself with plenty of self-described Catholics, but invariably he picks those whose real beliefs aren't actually Catholic. Obama has therefore relished exploiting the terrible apostasy which has devastated the human element of the Church over the last fifty years, an apostasy evident in polls showing that substantial numbers of self-identified Catholics completely reject the very set of beliefs which actually make someone a Catholic at all (let it be noted that Catholic teaching has always rejected the false modern notion that poll numbers ought to or even can determine truth. As John Paul II once said, “You can't take a vote on the truth”). Of course, we saw earlier that Obama's grasp of theology is—let us be kind—a bit lacking, but he shows no such ignorance of how to exploit a weakness.
Bella Dodd, one time head of the Communist party in America, converted to Roman Catholicism in part due to the efforts of the famous American archbishop Fulton Sheen. She admitted after her conversion that Joseph Stalin saw the Catholic Church as Communism's greatest enemy, such that Dodd herself was personally charged with implementing the following Communist scheme: send atheists, Communists, or radicals into the Catholic seminaries, having them strive for high and influential positions such as bishoprics and seminary rector professorships, so as to undermine the Catholic Church from within. Does that sound like a conspiracy theory? It's a conspiracy, but it's not theoretical: Dodd personally sent 1,100 such men into the priesthood, confessing that by the time she left Communism, she knew of at least four cardinals (those who elect the pope) “working for the Communists.”50 That might explain something of why millions of nominal Catholics ended up voting for someone who rejects their most fundamental beliefs. If those Catholics were theologically educated in parishes staffed with some of the students of Dodd's infiltrating radicals, what wonder that they recognized in Obama the image of the pseudo-Catholic “faith” which they learned at his ideology's hands. Like Stalin, Obama seems to have recognized that Catholicism is his greatest enemy. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” Rahmn Emmanuel is quoted as saying, and Obama has made sure not to let a good internecine Catholic division go to waste.
Error #4: Obama, Marriage, and the Unnatural Vice

“...such a [Communist] doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution...[Communism says that] there exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 11 (Italics added)

“I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”1—Barack Obama, 2004

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married...”2—Barack Obama, 2012 (italics added)


Few things are as subversive of Communist interests as a wholesome and God-fearing family. The family is a natural institution; marriage was established by God for the procreation and education of new human life. But Communism is an unnatural institution, an atheistic system which tries to level the natural inequalities present in society and replace them with an illusory and unnatural idea of “fairness.” Hence it is not surprising that Communists would take aim at marriage, and Obama certainly has.
Christ teaches that God Himself instituted marriage, and that its very nature entails the complementary union of one man and one woman: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause...a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh.”3 Note it well: a man shall cleave to his wife, not to his “husband.” Christ also makes reference to the sin of Sodom—whence the word “sodomy”—and its grave immorality by mentioning the terrible punishment which destroyed that ancient city (and since Christ is God, He Himself, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, inflicted that very punishment in the Old Testament), and He elsewhere rebukes a series of cities “for that they had not done penance,” stating that if the city of Sodom had witnessed the miracles which He worked in one such city, it might not have been wiped out (which plainly implies the justice of destroying that city, and the fact that its inhabitants did in fact commit grave sins by their sodomitical acts, since God does not destroy morally pristine populations, and since Christ would not have affirmed their need to do penance for something which was not actually evil).4 St. Paul the Apostle, who converted from being a virulent persecutor of Christianity to its ardent apostle, and who learned the Gospel from Christ Himself, condemns ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity in the plainest language: “And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy...”5 Yet another of Christ's apostles, St. Jude, speaks similarly: “As Sodom and Gomorrha...having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”6 Obama therefore seems to realize that Christianity cannot be used to support ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity; his above-cited 2004 quote specifically cites his nominal Christian beliefs as the source of his then-rejection of unnatural “marriage.”
Despite his repeated public rejections of this error, however, in 2012 Obama finally publicized what one might suspect to have been his true and long-standing position: sodomites ought to have their perversity recognized as “marriage.” Commentators have humorously pointed out that although the president of Chick-Fil-A was recently raked over the coals for stating what common sense has and always will state (two men can't “marry” each other), Obama himself supposedly maintained exactly the same thing for many years. His supporters ought therefore to have directed equal vitriol at Obama as they did towards Dan Cathy. Unless perhaps his supporters were implicitly admitting that Obama is a liar who never actually believed in his former adherence to so-called “traditional” (re: correct) ideas of marriage.
Obama's May 2012 quotation exposes more of the mind-mush relativism which characterized his earlier forays into theology. Obama affirms, for him personally (as though objective realities about marriage somehow vary from one man to the next), that it is “important” to recognize that sodomites and other perverts “should be able to get married.” The problem is that Obama is begging the question. Sodomites can marry any woman who will take them, but what reason and the natural law state is that they cannot marry each other. The inability of sodomites to marry each other has nothing to do with affirming what they should be “able” to do, but rather has to do with acknowledging an impossibility built into the nature of reality. The word “matrimony” comes from two Latin words, mater and munus, meaning the office by which one becomes a mother of children.7 Marriage is intrinsically directed towards the perpetuation of the human species by procreating and rearing children. Marriage can no more be “recognized” as obtaining between sodomites than corpses can be recognized as living bodies or pentagons recognized as having 7 sides. But as Pius XI notes, Communism doesn't concern itself with things like common sense and objective truth; institutions as fundamental as marriage devolve upon the changing whims of people who even Obama earlier admitted are “limited” in their understanding.
Much more can be and has been said about Obama's pandering to the deviant community, but we note only this interesting juxtaposition of two Obama remarks. The first, from the already-cited 2004 interview on faith: “...I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate.”8 And what did Obama claim as his mandate in publicizing his approval of perverted “marriages”? Let us permit him to speak for himself: “...this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others...but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule.”9 Obama criticizes the claiming of a divine mandate for one's public actions, then himself invokes a divine mandate for his public action. Common sense judgments about the origin of human life may be above Obama's “pay grade,” but staggering hypocrisy certainly is not.

Error #5: Obama, Contraception, and Carnal Depravity

“Communism, moreover...removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 10.

“Dear Mom...Can I borrow $18,000 to help pay for my birth control?”10—Obama 2012 campaign ad


In its inherent sterility and anti-conceptive nature, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity goes hand in hand with another of Obama's pet causes: contraception. It is a sad fact of Obama's four years in office, a fact which would have shamed and embarrassed all reasonable people in past eras, that one of Obama's great “achievements” has been his excessive fixation with making sure that everyone has access to contraception. Lots and lots of it. We can't be too vigilant, after all, in making sure that people aren't born.
A recent Obama re-election ad featured a hypothetical birth-control user, writing to her mother and asking for money with complaints that Mitt Romney's policies would render her unable to afford contraception. How much money, you ask? $18,000. Obama's campaign therefore sees nothing unusual or reprehensible in the idea of a woman surpassing a prostitute in her licentiousness, amassing a birth control bill which would suffice to feed a medium-sized family for a full year.
Obama's obsession with contraception goes hand in hand with what Pius XI described as Communism's removal of moral restraints, subservient to the Communist law that man is a mere throwaway element in a larger political machine. Pius XI describes the Communist belief that "no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system” (n. 10). Thus Obama's political ally, Nancy Peℓσѕι, contended that massive dollops of contraception will help improve the economy by “reduc[ing] costs.”11 Peℓσѕι is presumably referring to the (false) idea that preventing the birth of babies will somehow save the country money, even though countries like China and others, with their unnatural and inverted family tree of four aging grandparents cared for by two soon-to-age parents, who will in turn be cared for by only one child, face obvious and impending financial disaster because of such policies. Peℓσѕι's remarks also show no concern whatsoever for the moral status of her favored policies, just as Pius XI noted: men are mere cogs in the state machine. Obama and Peℓσѕι could also save the country money by executing every person over the age of 65, incinerating their bodies, and dumping the ashes in a landfill, sparing billions of dollars in subsequently unnecessary healthcare expenses (and in funeral plot maintenance costs). But even their thin moral code might shy away from such an appalling project (though perhaps this idea shouldn't even be suggested to them, for to paraphrase Cicero, there is no political program so vile that some liberal will not eventually propose it).
It is perhaps unsurprising that Obama's recent Democratic Convention featured a parade of pro-baby-massacring and/or pro-birth-preventing drones, like the shameless Sandra Fluke. Following Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Fluke, Obama called her and suggested that her parents ought to be “proud” of their daughter.12 Obama therefore considers it grounds for parental pride that Mr. and Mrs. Fluke be the parents of a woman whose claim to fame centers around her demand that taxpayers fund brothel-worthy lifestyles or else be tarred with the infamous epithet of “warring on women.” It is needless to say that no right-thinking parents would bubble over with “pride” if their daughter publicized her flagrant immorality and thereby exposed herself to national disgrace. Obama's idea of true womanhood, in short, apparently includes the idea of a woman who deliberately scorns what St. Paul says is a woman's glory: being the mother of children.13 It is telling that at the recent Democratic National Convention, organizers forbade the entrance of babies who lacked a certain pass credential (we can't be too careful about the security risk posed by teething infants, after all!), prompting criticism from no less a feminist than Gloria Steinem.14 But why would anyone be surprised that a party which stakes itself on a woman's “right” to prevent her children's existence or rip them apart in utero would coldly deny entrance to the same children who managed to bypass the contraceptors' and abortionists' claws?
Much more could be said about the long-reaching arm of the contraception movement, its manifestation in the “population control” efforts to shrink the human race down to an allegedly more manageable size via various forms of bƖσσdshɛd or coercion (Obama's “science czar” John Holdren has spoken—seriously—of introducing a sterilizer into the water supply to coercively render people unable to procreate15), the revelation that Obamacare allows 15 year old girls in Oregon to be sterilized without parental consent,16 and the Obama White House's apparent warming to Communist China's particular manner of promoting “choice.” Joe Biden, Obama's vice president, stated before a group of Chinese that he “fully understand” their monstrous forced-abortion one-child-only policy.17 A trial balloon or preview of coming attractions for an Obama second term? Don't put it past them.


Error #6: Obama and Socialism

“Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement...This pseudo-ideal is even boastfully advanced as if it were responsible for a certain economic progress.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 10, 8.

“And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”18—Barack Obama, 2008


Pius XI describes the error of Communist economic theory as consisting in a “pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labor” which exploits the “misery [which] has resulted from the unequal distribution of the goods of this world” (n. 8). Communists seek a “classless society” and hate the natural inequality which results from the unequal gifts distributed by God to men: “Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority...” (n. 10).
When Obama strays from his teleprompter, he bluntly professes such socialist doctrines. He praises the idea of redistributing wealth, as in a 1998 speech which recently came to light: “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution...”19 The notion of Communist hatred for inequality is likewise right at home in Obama's political philosophy, for Obama tells business owners and entrepreneurs that they “didn't build” the businesses which they did in fact work hard to construct, that the rich ought to “pay their fair share” (by having the fruits of their labors effectively robbed from them by greedy government hands, then to use those fruits to fund wasteful and multi-trillion dollar deficits), and that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money”20 (and who but a Communist or one of their sympathizers could favor such an arbitrary anti-capitalist cap on someone's financial achievement?).
Instead of prizing individual achievement, the use of one's gifts, and economic success and independence, Communists and socialists wish to subsume a man under government control. For socialists, robbing a man of his independence is not a negative but a positive, being yet another means of absorbing someone under the government's ever-expanding tentacles. Thus although Newt Gingrich meant his “food stamp president” comment to be a derisive remark about Obama's disastrous economic policies having forced millions of people to resort to government-funded basic necessities, one of Obama's ideological cohorts—the nominally-Catholic-but-begging-to-be-formally-excommunicated Nancy Peℓσѕι—claimed that America's growing inability to feed itself is actually a “badge of honor” for Obama.21
An Obama campaign ad entitled “Julia” further showcases the socialist love of ever-expanding, totalitarian-aspiring government. “Julia” is a fictional member of Obama's ideal state, who achieves “success” by riding a cradle-to-grave government gravy train which pays her way through life. The ill-conceived “Obamacare” health care reform is yet another massive attempt to put everyone under the government's control. Despite the reform's widespread unpopularity, Obama's strenuous efforts to pass it show such a strong commitment to his ideology that he will not balk even at the price of damaging his electoral chances. The long and short of it is that for Obama, retreating to federal dependence is a virtue instead of a vice.
An article fittingly titled “Meeting Young Obama” recounts Dr. John Drew's 1980 meeting with the then-20 year old student Barack Obama. Drew describes a series of discussions with the politically radical Obama, who spoke openly in support of Marxism and his expectation of a future “revolution” which would overthrow the reigning capitalist society. Drew, himself studied in Marxism and committed to political radicalism at the time, describes Obama's beliefs in 1980 as those of a “doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary.”22 Although Obama's rise to national political status has doubtless convinced him of the need to (publicly) hide the full extent of his beliefs, Obama's words and policies since that time show no evidence that he has lost anything of his far-left radicalism.
Sadly, Obama's economic policies have so devastated the national economy that millions of people now depend on federal aid of some form to supply their basic necessities. It would be a masterfully despicable thing, but not an unlikely one, if Obama has calculated the positive effect this will have on his electoral chances: since millions of voters now depend on Obama's ever-growing welfare, food stamp, and other benefit programs simply to feed themselves, Obama likely realizes that such voters will be reluctant to bite the hand that (literally) feeds them. Communists are a clever lot, but no less wicked for their cleverness.


Error #7: Obama and Race Warfare

“Hence [the Communists] endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society...The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 9, 15 (italics added)

“f I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.”23—Barack Obama, March 23, 2012

The exploitation of crisis forms a Communist staple, for out of the ruins of riots and violence a new social order can arise. Obama's fomenting of tensions in these areas once more fits perfectly with his exemplification of Russia's errors. Having already considered his socialist harping on class warfare, we turn to Obama's record on race relations
In Pius XI's above-cited quote we have a perfect biographical account of Obama's record on race relations. In spite of his implausible attempts to downplay his familiarity with some of Jeremiah Wright's outrageous remarks, the fact is that for twenty years Obama did attend the church which was home to his notorious pastor's race-baiting diatribes.24 When a white Cambridge, MA police officer responded to a call about apparently suspicious behavior by a black professor, Obama denounced the former's attempts to do his job by claiming that the officer “acted stupidly.” We know that no thinking white person would be caught dead making generalized criticisms about the entirety of the African-American community, but Obama exercises no such restraint over his own tendencies to racially generalize, as when he criticized his own grandmother as a “typical white person” for fearing black males who pass her on the street.25 If Obama is indeed the “post-racial president” which his fans tout him as being, one shudders to imagine what a “racial” president would look like.
Obama waded into yet another media-ginned race-riot-to-be with the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin, observing that if he had a son, he'd have looked like Trayvon (was the skin pigmentation of one of the involved parties somehow relevant to determining innocence or guilt?). Incidentally, it should be noted that Obama did not say “If I had a grandson,” perhaps because Obama may never know what his grandson would have looked like if Obama's children adopt their father's advice that he doesn't want them “punished” with a baby. Or to put it differently, Obama probably won't look like his grandson if his grandson ends up as a decapitated infant corpse buried in the abortuary garbage disposal. Which leads us to the next of Russia's errors.


Error #8: Obama and Abortion

“Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 11 (italics added)

“I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose...we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”26—Barack Obama, January 2012

“She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity.”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 11 (italics added)

“I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”27—Barack Obama, March 29, 2008 (italics added)

If we wish to identify a primary error of Russian Communism, we must find it in the Communist intent to pervert the notion of true womanhood. Vladimir Lenin, Communist luminary, stated that “the success of a [revolution] depends upon the degree of participation by women.”28 Good women ennoble men and raise them to higher standards of virtue, but evil women destroy them. Corrupt the women, then, and you will have your revolution. Continuing with our theme that Communism is an unnatural system, we can hardly imagine a more unnatural crime, than that a mother, urged by nature itself to care for her defenseless offspring, would instead snuff out the life which grows within her.29
Abortion is a particularly Russian error, since Russia “boasts” of having one of the highest abortion rates in the world. In Russia, the number of abortions exceeds the number of live births; more Russian mothers put their children to death than give them life. The demographic crisis sparked by this infamously horrifying scenario is such that Russian authorities have now taken measures to diminish the number of abortions and restore a healthy birth rate.30 It is a sad and remarkable day indeed when an American could wish that the United States learn something from Russia about protecting unborn human life!
Barack Obama, personification of Russia's errors, has distinguished himself for apparently never having met an unborn baby—or even a recently born baby!—including his own prospective grandchildren, whom he wouldn't object to seeing subjected to the exercise of “choice.” And to cut through the fog of deceptive euphemism, let the reader observe that the “choice” being exercised here involves slicing babies apart in the womb (D&C abortion), feeding them saline poison which burns them to death (saline amniocentesis abortion), extracting them in pieces by tearing off body parts and reassembling them outside the womb (D&X abortion), performing a C-section and either leaving them aside to die from neglect or else suffocating them (hysterectomy abortion), using a device which vacuums them out of the womb in pieces (suction aspiration abortion), or partially delivering them, ripping their heads open with a sharp object, then vacuuming their brains out of the skull (D&E or “partial birth” abortion). These represent a few of the “choices” which Obama advances as a “woman's right.” Obama has gone further by voting against a measure designed to protect infants who somehow manage to survive one of these Texas Chainsaw Massacre-like attempts on their life. If these facts outrage and horrify you, that's good. They should.
But no human being of sound mind and decent character could possibly defend the claim that committing the abominable and blood-curdling atrocities detailed above represents a “right,” least of all one which, in Obama's words, will foster women's “dreams.” Any thinking woman, and certainly any who has a conscience and who has undergone an abortion, will instead regard this madness as the manifestation of a nightmare.
Obama's dogged and dogmatic commitment to abortion belies his earlier claim that he is “suspicious of dogma,” for he has never shown himself the least bit suspicious of the dogma—and among liberals it is a dogma—that any woman must at any time have full freedom to bludgeon, stab, dismember, mutilate, burn or otherwise barbarously murder her offspring, not only when unborn, but even when born and outside the womb.
In brief, if you wish to find the instigator of a true “war on women,” look for the one whose policies have left both millions of unborn women lying bloodied and dead in abortuary dumpsters all over the country, and millions of unnatural mothers who bought the lies spewed by agents of “choice” like that infanticidal demagogue who doesn't want his daughters “punished” with a baby: Barack Obama. Or to paraphrase O'Brien from George Orwell's 1984: “Winston, if you desire a vision of America's future, imagine Obama knifing an unborn baby in the back of the head—forever.”


“The Church will be persecuted and the good will be martyred”: Obama and Totalitarianism

“The fury of Communism has not confined itself...this fearful destruction has been carried out with a hatred and a savage barbarity one would not have believed possible in our age. No man of good sense, nor any statesman conscious of his responsibility can fail to shudder at the thought that what is happening today...may perhaps be repeated tomorrow in other civilized countries. ”—Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 20 (italics added)

“One day, you will see the statue of the Immaculate in the center of Moscow atop the Kremlin...Before this takes place, we must pass through a trial of blood.”31—Saint Maximilian Kolbe

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Russia's Vladimir Putin] to give me space...This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”32—Barack Obama, March 26, 2012, unknowingly speaking to a live microphone


Although the entire papal encyclical on Communism should be on anyone's short list of must-reads, we will conclude by highlighting one of its significant warnings. Pius XI goes on to describe the barbarous murder which the Communists inflicted throughout the 20th century on their Catholic victims, in Russia, Spain, and elsewhere. Communist persecution continues today in China and Vietnam,33 among other places, and although we have not yet seen the escalation of bloody hostilities in America, no one should doubt the real possibility that such things can or will (eventually) come to that in these United States. Do you think that a man who doesn't want his daughters “punished” with a baby, who would placidly have his own grandchildren murdered, who not only champions the “right” to tear fetal arms and legs off unborn baby's bodies, but also champions the “right” to destroy the lives even of born alive infants who manage to survive the Jack-the-Ripper-esque atrocities foisted on them inside abortuaries, and whose administration singles out pro-life activists for harrassment34...do you really think that such a cold-blooded supporter of infanticide would have any scruples at all about using coercion or violence with citizens who interfere with his agenda? Do you think so? Think again. Unsuspecting lambs are the easiest ones for the wolf to carry off.
Obama's friendly neighborhood terrorist Bill Ayers once plotted about how to properly “eliminate” the estimated 25 million American who would refuse to embrace the leftist revolution which Ayers—and at least the 20 year old Obama—desired to see, as an FBI informant and former member of Ayers' organization revealed:

“I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. And they were dead serious.”35

Do you cherish an optimistic belief that the preview of coming attractions hinted at throughout the preceding article could not possibly transpire? Surely, you say, things couldn't get that bad in the land of the free, home of the brave? So said the German citizens prior to Hitler, the Russians before Lenin and Stalin, the Chinese prior to Mao, and the North Koreans before Kim Jong-Il. Did any of these people accurately foresee the horrors which subsequently came upon them? Doubtless in their days, as in ours, one could have found any number of naïve optimists, stupid grins plastered to their cheery faces, assuring their terrified companions, even as the very waters of the flood approached, that all was well and no need to worry. And all did seem well to them, until they were swallowed in a watery grave.
Some readers might wish to reject the line of argument pursued throughout this article as paranoid fearmongering. But the hallmark of paranoia is that it stems from an irrational and ungrounded fear. The quotations and policies detailed above are taken directly from Obama himself; no exaggerations or ungrounded fabrications are necessary. To compare Obama to any of the other dictators and tyrants mentioned is but a natural and inevitable conclusion drawn from his own actions.
A prime example of Obama's totalitarian aspirations can be found in a White House Twitter account launched in 2011 and known as “Attack Watch.” What was Attack Watch, you ask? Obama wanted to give citizens the opportunity to report on nefarious anti-Obama activity: “Join Attack Wire – and help stop the attacks on the President before they start.”36 In Orwell's 1984, Big Brother was watching you; in America's 2012, Obama is. If “Attack Watch” sounds like something straight out of Stalin's Soviet Union or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea, and if the idea of the U.S. government urging its citizens to tattle on anti-revolutionaries (re: people who recognize Obama for what he is) sends a cold chill up your spine, that's good. It ought to. Your recognition of Obama's Orwellian proclivities is the mark of a mind attuned to reality.
Obama was raised by an atheist, friend of a terrorist, and mentored by a Communist. The outcome of his presidency was foretold ninety-one years before it began, by Our Lady of Fatima, and its principles were unfolded and refuted in Pius XI's exposition of Russian Communism, who himself stated, in a different encyclical condemning nαzιsm, that Catholics should deliberately exercise suspicion towards governments like Obama's: “The more the enemies attempt to disguise their designs, the more a distrustful vigilance will be needed, in the light of bitter experience.”38
In his exposition of Communism, Pius XI offers the only certain and unfailing remedy to repel the results of these very serious and dark times now clouding over us (n. 59, italics added):

“And so, as a final and most efficacious remedy, We recommend, Venerable Brethren, that in your dioceses you use the most practical means to foster and intensify the spirit of prayer joined with Christian penance. When the Apostles asked the Savior why they had been unable to drive the evil spirit from a demoniac, Our Lord answered: "This kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."[39] So, too, the evil which today torments humanity can be conquered only by a world-wide crusade of prayer and penance...Let them implore also the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Virgin who, having crushed the head of the serpent of old, remains the sure protectress and invincible "Help of Christians."”

Readers who consult the quotation which opened this article can see for themselves that Our Lady of Fatima's requests most certainly have not been heeded. If those requests were heeded, recall, then Russia would be converted. Not only has Russia certainly not converted, but instead she has spread her errors even to the distant shores of the United States, and hence the Blessed Virgin's requests have not been heeded. Let us then heed Her requests and Pius XI's exhortation by praying, praying very much, and begging God, with Masses, with Holy Hours, with penance and reparation, that the requests of the Holy Virgin of Fatima will indeed be heeded, and with all possible haste. One of those requests, particularly suited to the month of October, is the prayer of the Holy Rosary, the use of which has in past ages spared entire nations from disaster, like Austria in 1948 and Brazil in 1962.39 Another of those requests includes a papal consecration of Russia, by name, together with all the world's Catholic bishops, to the Blessed Virgin Mary's Immaculate Heart. This has never happened, not with Pius XII's two consecrations in 1942 and 1952, nor with John Paul II's two consecrations in 1982 and 1984.40
It was through the Holy Virgin that Christ the Savior came to the world, and it is through Her, says St. Louis de Montfort, that men must likewise return to Christ. The survival of our country may very well depend on it, and the time is getting short. Certain problems are so grave that no merely human efforts can resolve them, and our present national situation is one such problem. Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ask God for a miracle, because we are going to need one, and soon. Obama told Americans that he wished to “fundamentally transform America,” and he has succeeded. Obama told the Russians that after his next and rapidly approaching election—which he clearly assumes that he will win—he will have greater “flexibility,” presumably to promote more “hope and change,” errors-of-Russia style. The Blessed Virgin Mary told the children of Fatima, on the contrary, that the spread of Russia's errors would spell disaster and annihilation for entire nations. Obama is a liar, but the Blessed Virgin Mary is the all-truthful Mother of Truth Himself. Let us listen to and obey Her counsels, and ask Her to save the country dedicated to Her Immaculate Conception as Patroness. Immaculate Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Fatima, Help of Christians, Consoler of the Afflicted, Virgin Most Powerful, and Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us.41