Obama’s god:

What religion is Obama?

What religion is Obama?

The true answer to that question is, Obama worships himself. Obama is homosexual. He is also a hardcore leftist. Thus, his relationship with Islam is complicated. Further complicating Obama’s relationship with Islam is the status of Allah as, “The Greatest”, which is in conflict with Obama’s narcissism. However, it is Obama’s narcissism that is actually the key of comprehending his Islamic sympathies.

Obama is a religion and a god unto himself. He sees no other living God. He worships no other God. Men who worship God seek to become a part of God through obedience. If Obama viewed himself as subservient to Allah, he would keep all of the Koran, which he does not. Nonetheless, Obama was raised Islamic. It is a part of who he is, and remember, he worships himself. Obama serves Islam, not to be a part of Islam and worship Allah, but because Islam is a part of himself whom he worships; he sees no one greater.


The dominion belongs to reality, however, for the time being, reality seems to be largely absent. There is a manipulation of information on such an immense scale today that most people now live in a pseudo-reality. As more and more people adopt a false reality, the perception of it as truth becomes greater, and others are also persuaded to accept a false reality as reality.

Finally, when a delusion gains enough momentum, those who do not subscribe to it are intimidated, ridiculed, and given derogatory labels by the true believers of pseudo-reality, so that by their sheer numbers the true-believers cause even many clear thinkers to begin questioning themselves.

At that point becomes possible that for a finite period of time, pseudo-reality can work with the same power and affect as reality itself by the control of perceptions. If enough people are convinced that markets are going up they invest in the markets and they do indeed go up, even if there is no physical foundation for it. However, this manipulation of reality will not be sustainable.

For although a pseudo-reality can bring forth a seemingly positive effect, that effect is doomed, having no foundation in reality. More often than not, however, a pseudo-reality is likely to have a negative result, bringing a destructive end to what otherwise could have been a positive outcome.

“I believe it and therefore it is,”
This seems to be the philosophy of the elitist media, those who regard them, and also many of those in high places of power today. They believe that if they can control perceptions by the manipulation of information, that they can in turn control the world and create or manipulate reality. This is a folly of catastrophic proportions that has put the world on a collision course with the truth. When reality inevitably collides with false perceptions the end result shall be the devastation of that which is not. Reality always comes back to claim its domain.

Truth and Science

Science as the guardian of truth

Has the scientific community set itself up as the arbiter and guardian of truth? I believe it has.  In “science” there is a pretension not only to know, but to also be able to classify what is unknown. The assumption is that because science does not know something, know one else can it know either. The fact is, just because scientists don’t know something, that cannot be counted as proof that nobody knows it.

There are people who know things that science cannot know, because the information falls outside the realm of scientific experimentation and measurements. It is knowledge that is perceived rather than proven.  A conflict arises between invisible truths and science, when the “scientific” community determines that because a thing cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be known. It is then, that by the designation of things being an unknown, they think to have a monopoly on knowledge. Thus, they categorize all things ‘known’ or ‘unknown’, and thus they imagine they are the ones who ‘know’ all things that are known.

“Science” cannot know what I am thinking, but I do, and only I do. Nor by “science” can I prove all my thoughts or the many experiences only I experienced. Even if I reveal secrets only I know to be true, it doesn’t prove them, it merely proves what I am saying they are. Indeed. The private secrets I hold are mine. Does it mean they did not exist because only I know them and science cannot prove them?

It is absurd to say because something cannot be proven by science it therefore does not exist or it is an unknown. It is presumptuous to assume that because something is not known by almost all, that it is unknown by all. It is presumptuous to say that because a majority of people who profess a faith are deceived, all who profess a faith are deceived.

By “science”, one may assume there is no God.  On the other hand, by science one can assume there is. Moreover, by a personal experience one may be deceived, then again, one may come to know something intangable—and that which is known by one, may be something beyond the knowledge of all others.

By believing that things unknown to science are unknown to all, there is a temptation to imagine knowing everything knowable, This in turn is followed by the temptation to establish “the truth”,  which in turn, becomes something that is expected to be accepted by all and questioned by none.

The “scientific community” can only imagine to know all it does and does not know, but it cannot truly know what anyone else knows, personal experiences, invisible knowledge, and God are not subject to science. And, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Psalm 21st Century

O’ God, save us from the ‘love” of our enemies and protect us from the “compassion” of evil doers. Deliver us also from those who would force their “wisdom” upon us. Let not those who seek to “save” us succeed O’ Lord. Neither let them “bless” us with their “wisdom” or prevail in making us all “equal” or in bringing “peace” and “prosperity”.

As an overflowing flood which drowns all before it, they have determined to quench our thirst. As a goldfish at a sorority party, they imagine to swallow us whole. For our own safety they bind us tightly in cords of “compassion”; for our own “protection” they wrap us securely in swaddling cloths of tyranny. They have also vowed to rob our posterity, and our posterity’s posterity for generations to come; to bring us prosperity.

O’ Lord, let those coming to ‘save” us be confounded and confused. Let terror seize upon them like that of a bleeding sailor fallen overboard into shark infested seas. Cause them to go round and round in circles as a dog snapping at ticks on his most hinder parts. Yea, let them melt away as a candle burning upside down. As maggots upon a rock in the noon day sun let their power dry up and be no more. As a snail lost in a salt mine, let them dissolve away into nothing and cease.

The Past is not Past

William Faulkner once famously remarked, “The past is not dead, in fact, it is not even past.” The axiom underlying this statement is the reality, that regardless of cultures, circumstances, or even time, the natural tendencies and impulses which are the motivators driving civilizations do not change. What follows, from the beginning of world history, is essentially the same plot with a variety of nuances in different settings with different characters—from Babylon to Alexandria, to Rome, to Berlin—and finally, to Washington D.C.

During Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930’s a great part the ideology he embraced was popular in intellectual circles, not only in Europe but internationally. Most of his thinking was not as original as one might imagine, but rather, were ideas derived from ancient philosophers, pagan and esoteric beliefs, while other tenants of what would become Nazi ideology were from a collection of worldviews and philosophies held by prominent thinkers of the day. In fact, many core beliefs upon which the Third Reich was built were part of, what at the time, was considered a widespread progressive worldview. There were a number of prominent individuals of great recognition, influence, and power who also shared similar views, of which, some merely sympathized with Hitler, while others supported him openly.

Proponents of fascist thought were not only found in Axis nations, but were also present in America, England, and throughout the world proliferating societies in both hemispheres. In their ranks were corporate giants, international bankers, academics and renown intellectuals, politicos and other celebrated individuals of great power and influence. Indeed, most of Germany’s international support structure before, and during the war remained intact after the war—some even continued aiding Nazi war criminals in the aftermath by providing escape routes, documents, and sanctuary to prominent Nazi war criminals. Even governments which fought Nazism took in and gave prestigious positions to German scientists and experts in order to obtain advanced knowledge and capabilities to stay on the cutting edge of technology and gain an advantage in a modern world.

After the Third Reich utterly collapsed, its global base of sympathizers which remained intact immediately set out recasting their image. They seized the day using the very catastrophic events they had help to create as a reason to establish what they hoped eventually would become an effectual world government with an elitist ruling class of philosopher-kings running the show.

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was their attempt to do this by establishing international laws and controls; however, conflict over the extent of power the body should possess thwarted it having any real authority. Thus, the U.N. became a quasi-governmental institution serving only as a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, until state governments would gradually yield sovereignty to the international body. There was another unsuccessful attempt in 1946 under a proposal called the Baruch Plan which would have established the first international agency with actual global authority—to this end an agency was founded called the “United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.” This agency was to have global authority over all matters concerning the development and control of nuclear technology and materials. Although the Baruch proposal failed in a vote at the U.N. its failure did not deter proponents for a central controlling global authority, and they proceeded on with the process of bringing a New World Order into being in increments through the creation of inroads.

Internationalists realize that in order to establish international controls, the current power of the nation-state must be diminished—especially the power of the United States. However, attempting to undermine laws and governmental systems is an arduous task, therefore inroads are needed, and some of the most effective inroads are those outside of government which, nonetheless, promote political agendas. These groups in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private voluntary organizations (PVOs) are created as a power base to influence government and shape laws from the outside in. Likewise, by the creation of think tanks, tax exempt activist foundations, community organizations, teachers unions pushing manipulative curriculum, and the like, the mentality of society may be transformed. It is a lengthy process which takes generations, but, the most efficient way to overthrow a system of government is to gradually change the culture until the people change the system themselves or allow others to do so.

On the other hand, the transformation of society is not only left to NGOs and PVOs which are but tentacles of international corporations and activist billionaire philanthropists who create and fund them. Many corporate giants also actively work as change-agents and are openly involved in social engineering. They have a great affect directly on the culture being the owners and controllers of major media outlets, music, television and movie studios, production companies, publishing houses, major internet search engines, and a long list of many other entities, which not only have a tremendous impact upon society, but also make billions of dollars to further their agendas. One of the wealthiest and most predominant of these social-engineers is George Soros who funds the Open Society Institute (OSI) along with various other NGOs but besides Soros there are many others.

Determined to avoid another world war and wishing to micro-manage global social and economic conditions, these elitist individuals and organizations have engaged in a cultural revolution to overthrow traditional beliefs and systems. This culture war began decades ago and has gained momentum since, but particularly during the 1960s and ‘70s under the banner of world peace.

The current transformation of the world’s diverse cultures into the modern age of high technology is evidence that while humanity has come a great distance in some ways, in other ways it has remained in the same place. The progressive elitist warlords of today have evolved since the days of gaining dominion through brute force by way of the sword, to conquering subjects with ideology, propaganda, wealth, and even entertainment—enticing societies into submission, or satiating them through lust into apathy, thus bringing them into mental bondage by way of manipulation. But regardless of the ways and means between the past and present, the same aspirations of world domination remain constant, so in terms of objectives, the past is not merely yesterday, it is today and tomorrow. The engineered transformation of society today is but a continuation of the war for the world, as were all wars prior. And it may be said that somewhere, whenever we are not at war, someone is in the process of building up to it, either intentionally or in blind ignorance out of an attempt to create a World Order.

“The terrorists today have the will to destroy us, but they don’t have the power. We have the power to eradicate them, but we must now show that we have the will.” – Benjamin Netanyahu – Sept. 14th, 2001

The United States has often been referred to as the world’s only super-power, but what does that really mean? The potential of a nation is only that. More often than not, the destiny of a nation is determined by will power and unity rather than potential or physical power. Potential will be realized only to the extent of the will and unity that exists among the people to achieve the fullness of what is possible.

History shows that greatness often begins with a small group of determined people. Certainly in the case of America this is true. Many of the people who came to America’s shores were the poor persecuted and despised rejects of Europe. Still, what drove many of these these individuals was a God inspired self-determination which in the end proved to be the greatest resource they brought ashore with them.

When the War of Independence broke out, approximately one third of colonists supported the revolution while the remaining two thirds were divided between those who were indifferent and those whose loyalties remained with the British crown. In the end the resolved minority not only prevailed over the other two thirds of their fellow countrymen but also against the world’s super power of the time.

There is more than one important lesson in this: first, a determined minority, although small, like a rudder on a ship can decide the course; second, a great power can be defeated by an inferior power under certain circumstances if a minority is unified and has the greater strength of will. America presently faces the fate of one or the other. If America prevails it will again be by strength of a minority within.

Rarely has it been the majority of a nation that initiated the greatness of that nation, even if the majority later enjoyed the benefits of that greatness. The inspiration for movements leading to greatness has always been initiated by a minority who persevered while enduring the vehement opposition of their antagonists, while the remainder of society largely in self absorption existed in a stupor of apathy.

Presently not only are there international threats posed by terrorist and state sponsors of terrorism, but there is also a resurgence of communistic socialism world wide—fascism to be more precise. Authoritarian governments and quasi-democracies through international treaties and organizations are seeking to consolidate the power of many to compete against a few by creating a global monopoly of power. However, for the United States threats are not limited to external elements, for the greatest threats today come from within our own system.

We grew from being a poor nation to a wealthy one, but we are still reviled, despised, and rejected by many other nations of the world. Because of this, there are some among us who willingly accept collective guilt on our behalf for everything that is wrong with the world today. They do this believing that because America is a super-power, not only is she responsible for all problems and their respective solutions, but she also holds an unfair advantage in terms of wealth and power.

Proponents of these views work to weaken America in every aspect and bring her under submission to prevailing world views in an attempt to create equality among nations. They hold that the road to world peace is only possible through capitulation by effectively surrendering our status as a super-power among the nations.

At the same time, the moral minority who reject capitulation are categorized and labeled among other things as: bigots, warmongers, dividers, unilateralists, fanatics, extremists, and cowboys. Even so, if this group will not only endure but be proactive, they will join in the greatness of those who came before them.

Because more than half of the nation is uninvolved and would rather exist in a stupor, battles are decided by the minority groups who do engage. During the next decade not only will the course of America be decided; but the course of the world. If America were to fail, virtually all of humanity will also fail for America is the stability of the world. She is the shinning city on a hill, the last best hope for mankind. Over forty years have past since the following words were spoken, but never have they been any truer than they are today:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.“ – Ronald Reagan, 1964

Will a minority rise to the occasion as in the past? I believe a minority will, and at the very least, they will retain their honor.

RAS – 2009

What follows was first posted in 2006. It remains applicable to the current crises, if not more so now than then. There have been some grammatical corrections and editing for clarity, but the content is essentially consistent with the original.

I believe we are living in an age [2006] of transition when the world as we know it today will see a radical change. This global transition is brought on by modernization and globalization combined with the unification and consolidation of powers. Unfortunately, although knowledge has been built upon from generation to generation, giving mankind more power than in any time in history, at the same time, mankind is reverting back morally, and tribal impulses are becoming the guiding force. These primitive impulses, although cloaked in sophistication and newly acquired knowledge, inspire ideologies that are eroding the foundation of our rights and freedoms. They also devalue individual rights and promote forced collectivism (fascism, communism, socialism, and almost all other “-isms”).

Collectivism has long been the rule in many cultures. However, the natural impulse for such rule is not exclusive to tribal cultures, undeveloped societies, or civilizations of the past. Moreover, regardless of how seemingly civilized, there is a natural tendency in all collective communities, regardless of ideologies, to become totalitarian. In the modern collective society for example, independent character development of individuals is replaced by mass social programming. The individual conscience is replaced by a contrived group-conscience of politically correct social decrees of the state. I believe that in a final analysis, these societies are every bit as barbaric and cruel as any other primitive tribal culture—even if only through sophistry and a charade of fastidious “compassion” and “goodwill”.

Other than an appearance of sophistication, the main difference between the neo-tribal modern society with advanced sciences, vis-a-vis primitive tribal cultures, is the amount of power the former is able to amass through wealth, knowledge, and science. Nazi Germany stands as a prime example where intellect was worshiped, while the focus on moral character and the value of life were disregarded or sacrificed for efficiency—the goal: assimilating the citizenry into a “superior” collective being—a godstate. The end result was scientific and educational advancement devoid of morality, which, in that case as always, was a human catastrophe.

Intellect, being perceived as the greatest power is a concept which holds in contempt the principle that good is the greatest power. However, the greatest and freest societies ever known to mankind were those which were built upon a foundation of righteous principles, not mere intellectualism. The words, “when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” are not without merit.

While there are many dangers facing the world today, the greatest threat is not posed by religious fanatics or terrorists threatening mass destruction. This statement is not to diminish the terrorist threat which is very real indeed, but to indentify the true source of most global dangers and magnify a threat that is much greater within the global economical system and governmental workings of the world’s most powerful nations today.

Adherents to radical Islam would have little wherewithal whereby to achieve their ambitions without sponsoring nations. To whatever degree terrorists succeed in the future it will have only have been made possible by state governments which harbored and supplied provisions whereby terrorists could exist. Moreover, nations sponsoring terrorists are also given their power by the most powerful nations in the world. It is therefore that Islamic fanaticism could be defeated if the will of the nations were to do so.

Notwithstanding, the will of the nations to seriously confront the dangers posed by Islamic extremists does not exist for various reasons. In Western democracies, capitulation is founded upon the fear of global crises and economic disruption which would ensue at home and abroad in a full scale confrontation with extremists. In some other nations the reason for supporting hostile regimes is much more nefarious. Some governments with malevolent ambitions have found it to their advantage to use Islamic extremism to their advantage. By proxy they hope to displace American influence globally and assert themselves as global powers. This is true of Russia and China which both profit financially off rogue entities and are fighting an asymmetrical war against the West in general, but primarily against the United States. These ambitions, which are all but ignored by the West are harder to deny in the case of Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is much more blunt about his beliefs and goals.

Russian and Venezuelan economies are based primarily on energy resources; both reap greater profits form higher oil prices due to a Middle-Eastern crisis and global terrorism. Both work to corner the market on supplies. This alliance, however, between these nations and other hostile regimes goes beyond economics and establishing global control of energy supplies for financial gain. There is also the tactic of confronting the West through Islamic proxies. This not only drains the resources of the West, but also offers a means diverting attention away from the rising threats of their own nations which have totalitarian underpinnings and global ambitions.

American wealth through global enterprise has built and empowered much of the world. Nations such as Russia, China, and others who have been empowered by the West are now to the point they can together readily challenge the West. Although these nations are often alluded to as though they are aspiring democracies, the political and economic reality is that the structure and philosophies of these formally so called communist nations now resembles the fascist regimes of the 1930’s.

The West currently [2006] is faced with an intense asymmetrical war which involves economics, technology, politics, and confrontation by proxy. Nevertheless, Westerners in large choose to live in denial. There will come a point however, when these nations which oppose U.S. hegemony openly assert themselves in a challenge to U.S. power. What takes place between now and then on their part is merely positioning and maneuvering in order to gain an insurmountable advantage.

Possible scenarios

Russia and China are emerging global powers. They have no aversion to formation of a world order on their terms; the main obstacle in their view has been the United States and to a lesser degree Europe. On the other hand, there are also elitists in the West who have no aversion whatsoever to formation of a world order with these totalitarian countries, insomuch, that they have set about dismantling and condemning Western sovereignty and power from within at every opportunity. Many proponents of a global order believe so fool-heartedly in it, they disregard any risk involved and would be pleasured to see a world order regardless of the initial cost to humanity.

I have a premonition [2006] that the world is on the verge of a two part catastrophe. It arises out of the attempt to merge nations with incompatible ideologies into a global system and it is further compounded by the adopted solutions to rectify the discord. It is very possible that in the aftermath of an event or chain of events, such as global economic upheaval, international terrorism with WMD or a nuclear devise, or some other catastrophe, the catalyst may exist to form a multi-polar global society. In any case, the end result will be catastrophic.

The West has been the stabilizing force in the world for decades. Over time, however, western civilization has been sold out by its politicians, international elitists, and global corporations. Media-elitists have worked to condition the citizenry to accept this or to be ignorant of it. This shall manifest itself in no small way. The erosion of the power of free nations is evident; and, at this point irreversible. Once US hegemony ceases from being the stabilizing force, conflicts and global chaos will follow; world stability today as we know it will cease.

I have, however, another premonition also, for there has always been a people somewhere, some place, who arise to stand for Good. And the children of Light shall be drawn unto them; for Good will sustain them. In the end it always does. Keep an eye on Israel.