New Articles

Submit Articles

About Us


Politics & Govt




Liberalism on Steroids: Face-Book of Social Engineering in the West (Part One)

--Cutting-Edge Analytics--

By: Franklin Otorofani Published April 15th, 2012

Obama in the Eye of the Liberal Siege

The Obama administration is entering its twilight zone so soon after it was launched on a platform of hope and “change we can believe in” barely three and half years ago when the world stood still on inauguration day. How time flies. And there will be plenty of materials for historians to gather, analyze, and present to the world in the fullness of time. And when that time finally arrives, this writer will not be numbered amongst the history titans that would be called upon to deliver their verdict. But make no mistake about it there will be many good things to be said and written about the Obama administration when the dust finally settles just as there will be many bad things to be said and written about it as well. With $2 trillion squandered on so-called stimulus packages with little to show for it, there is the temptation to go negative on the Obama administration on the economic front but I'll be the first to admit that President Obama is a hard working man who wants the best for his country and he has done some good on the fringes that have failed to register in bolder reliefs. His major achievement, the healthcare law, is currently facing possible death sentence in the US Supreme Court. But it is the definition of what constitutes “best” for his country and the means of attaining it that is critically at issue at the moment. Opinions are sharply divided about the ideological approach that would best attain that goal. While many would prefer to take the narrow but difficult road that leads to prosperity in the long run, Obama and his liberals Democrats seem to have elected to take the wide and easy road, like the German autobahn, that leads to disaster in the end. You cannot revive an ailing economy by simply pumping borrowed money into it to fund entitlement programs (food stamps) in the name of equality and helping the poor.

In a sense an administration is a work in progress and until the last chapter of it is written it would be premature to attempt any general assessment of its probable or even possible legacies because things done could be undone and things undone could be done till the administration draws its very last breaths. And I do not presume to divine that Obama will be a one-term president not being versed in the arcane art of soothsaying or star-gazing. But I do know, if my political antennae served me well, just like everyone else that has taken keen interest in the administration that when President Barack Hussein Obama leaves the White House eventually he will be leaving behind a trail of moral wreckage that will hunt America for a long time to come. The change we asked for, for the economic empowerment of the ordinary man and woman; of the enthronement and/or restoration of traditional family values that Obama himself had stressed in his campaign, while admonishing his own people; the restoration of civility to the polity; and the promotion of One America amongst others have all but vanished into thin air only to be replaced by the glorification of the culture of dependency; class warfare; poisoned Washington; stalled economy stuck at 2% GDP growth rate; debt overhang; chronic unemployment; huge budget deficits and; worst of all, accelerated decline of family values and willful bifurcation of the moral principal as liberals take over and spread their cancerous tentacles to infect vital organs of the American society. While unemployment remains stuck above 8% nationally with mortgage market in the US still under water seemingly unable to recover from its crisis unemployment among African-Americans and Hispanics communities is hovering at 17%. Obama's own people are paying the highest price of the economic downturn with no end in sight. Obama himself has confessed that much in an Oprah Winfrey show that he has failed to change Washington and the same is equally true about his candid admission of his government’s failure to turn the economy around. Should Obama leave office at the end of his term in January, 2013, he would have failed to deliver the goods even for his own people because the lots of African-Americans have gotten a whole lot worse under Obama not better. And if Obama cannot empower his own people economically many would be tempted to dismiss his as a “wasted presidency” meant just to decorate Washington, DC. While not attempting to play the historian, the role the Obama administration has played in this unfolding scenario bears essential relevance to the thrust of this article and his administration is being critiqued from that perspective only. I'll leave the treatment of other aspects of his performance to others for now. Therefore, references to Obama and his policies here are only incidental rather than being the main thrust and focus of this piece, for we are wrestling with a beast far larger than Obama.

LET’S BEGIN this rather unusual marathon journey by ticking off some major items in the liberal dirty laundry list in the Age of Obama in America:  Atheists rallying in Washington, DC. carrying irreverent placards that read, “Man Created God” and “God is a Myth.” Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement suddenly erupting and spreading like wildfires across towns and cities in the US and franchised abroad, with its ragtag anarchists and hippies hanging their signature “99%” poverty labels on their foreheads as a badge of honor and demonizing the rest “1%” successful Americans that have made America great in an all-out attack on wealth and success in business. There is a creeping ground war on wealth in America from those for whom the American dream has turned the American nightmare for whatever reasons. Since when has legitimate wealth become a sin, and in a America of all countries? Obama has been stumping on campaign trail and this is the theme that he keeps hammering on ad nauseam. All of a sudden “success” that every human being, including, I might add, the so-called 99% aspires to, is fast acquiring the toga of some hideous evil that must be extirpated in Obama's America. What a sick joke! Who amongst the so-called 99% does not wish he/she was numbered among the so-called 1%?

In sharp contrast homosexuals flocking to New York City, bused from different parts of the US that are hostile to their immoral agenda to take advantage of newly minted so-called same-sex marriage law signed by Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, forgetting for a moment that a true natural marriage as opposed to socially invented artificial marriage, is not created by laws but by cultural traditions, and law is a formal certification meant only for the purposes of officialdom and the bureaucracy not traditions. And if it's not in a people's culture it lives only on a piece of paper signed by some temporal government official, for the government cannot invent forms of marriage and impose same on society. Laws that are not grounded on the convictions of the cultural heritage of a people but superimposed from the top on society are no worthier than the media in which they might be inscribed. As such, the lawgiver labors in vain.  At best it's a paper symbol, or as they say, paper tiger. Marriage is not a government's gift that could be granted or withdrawn at will but a divine spiritual union immanent in opposing sexes that fuses both sexes into one not just in the physical sense but also in the spiritual realm just like the male sperm fuses into the female egg to create a human being. A male sperm cannot fuse into another male sperm from another male and a female egg cannot fuse into another female egg from another female to create a human being. It does not require a biologist or geneticist to understand that it’s a biological impossibility. So also is same-sex marriage. It is worthy of note that the so-called same-sex marriages are already falling apart barely two years after they were purportedly contracted and it has been predicted that 50% of those “marriages” will collapse like a house of cards in no time. A clear indication of that was contained in a recent AP report:

“Same-sex couples who have fought so long for the right to marry are finding they also need to fight for the right to divorce.

"The court finds that to recognize the alleged marriage would be contrary to the public policy of Maryland," Prince George's County Judge A. Michael Chapdelaine wrote in a two-page opinion.”

Nothing artificial that mimics the natural can stand the test of time. It's a legislative utopia and a political fraud of historical proportions of which both the purported beneficiaries themselves and society are victims. We can see then as the Biblical and other scriptures have told us that marriage is a prime cultural asset indicating both physical and spiritual union of opposite sexes primarily for the propagation of the human race (“Go ye and multiply and fill the earth”) and not a legislative diktat imposed by some pandering politicians from above on society to buy votes. And children are at the core of marriage. It did not come into being by royal decrees or parliamentary invention but through time honored customs and traditions passed down from one generation to another. After helping to break up and utterly destroy genuine natural marriages with their social engineering governmental meddlesomeness in families they are busy creating fake, childless, artificial marriages to take their place under the guise of equality. (50% of all marriages in America end in divorce, and 66% of all divorces come from childless marriages according to Divorce Statistics at When you add such sobering statistics to the rate of single-parenthood in the US we are made to behold a society that has been ravaged by the liberal plague of permissive individualism. According to the latest Pew Research findings just 51% of Americans are married with the remaining 49% going solo in their lives. For Christ sake we are talking about a supposedly Christian nation, for crying out loud. Where is the Christian in the Christianity? How much worse can it get? Hey, it gets even worse. 

THE DIRTY laundry list continues: Hitherto closet gays in the US military coming out of the woodwork to stake their claim for equality with regular people and Obama eyeing their votes quickly obliging them with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell law (DADT) which barred openly gay from serving in the US military, a policy instituted by President Bill Clinton to protect the military from the social scourge. President Barack Obama issuing a daring directive through his Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to Catholic and other churches and religious organizations to provide free contraceptives to their female employees in their health insurance plans under Obama's Affordable Health Care Act currently facing intense judicial scrutiny in the US Supreme Court; setting off a political firestorm between conservatives and liberals few months to the general elections in which Obama himself is candidate for re-election. Never mind that Obama once casually said that one term was enough for a president to make a difference in the White House. That was yesterday, today is a different story and desperation for second term has set in and female votes are critical to the realization of a second term—so throw the dogs some good bones in an election year and they will all come sprinting in with breathless speed. As this piece was going out Obama was holding a special event for females in Washington, DC, organized by White House Council for Women and Girls, which the administration in quintessential Washington-speak, denies has nothing to do with politics but for which nevertheless “The White House will also be releasing a 55-page report on all the ways various departments and agencies have implemented policies to benefit women. Some examples of those initiatives are focusing on equal pay for women, affordable college education, tax cuts that benefit women, and healthcare policies, like the recent controversial coverage of contraceptives,” as reported by CNN White House Producer Becky Brittain. All of a sudden “war on women” rhetoric has become the battle cry from the left all because someone stood up to the Obama administration's imposition of free contraceptives coverage on churches and mosques in America against their religious teachings and convictions. That, in fact, is creeping tyranny. It's an insult to the intelligence of females to be singled out for these kinds of political pandering in an election year. The very idea of a male president patronizing females by setting up a special bureaucracy to cater to women is ipso facto paternalistic; does not reduce but rather reinforces gender inequality. Feminists should be bristling at the patronizing games of the Democrats but they will not. Why? I have no idea. But could it be because they have been promised free contraceptives by the Obama administration? But that is possible only if the Affordable Health Care Act stands as is after the impending US Supreme Court’s hammer falls.

Like their fellow male citizens American females would love nothing better than just being left alone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps in our competitive world and many are doing just that on merit. Otherwise why would Margaret Thatcher become PM in Britain, Angela Merkel, Chancellor in Germany, Christine Lagarde, President of IMF, Dilma Rousseff ,President of Brazil, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia, Winfrey Oprah, and our very own dear Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, VP of World Bank and getting nomination for the President of World Bank and a battery of female governors in the US? Meritocracy! That is the key that opens doors for both males and females alike. And I would respectfully urge President Obama to support the candidacy of Okonji-Iweala to demonstrate his new-found love for gender equality. It is not by patronizing women to get votes but attainments based purely on merit. Who says women need crutches to walk? There is nothing wrong with their legs. They earned their paychecks just like males in a brutally competitive world. They do not need government patronage and special programs to get ahead. After all, did not the technology giant, Hewlett Packard (HP) just appoint a woman its President and CEO? If anyone needed special programs with special government's agency it would not be American women but African Americans, Obama's own people, who had suffered slavery and segregation for centuries and who are still living on the periphery of American society till date. I am not aware of any special governmental programs for them in the Obama presidency. On the contrary, Obama had been repeatedly accused of tactfully distancing himself from them even chiding black leaders that had drawn the ire of Black Congressional Caucus, well until now when elections are around the corner that he has, again, tactfully moved closer to them.

What better way to secure American female votes in an election year than ordering Bishops, Imams, and Rabbis to start distributing contraceptives free of charge to their sex starved female employees itching to get in the game and get some action with free condoms supplied by Planned Parenthood Federation and free contraceptives ordered by the Obama administration! Heck, the polls have already indicated that this tactic is already working for the female votes that are now trending Obama. He leaves Mitt Romney in the dusts on the female votes in the swing states according to recent polls. That is the liberal genius at work and we ignore it at our collective peril. It appeals to base instincts and that makes it utterly irresistible to the vast majority of weak-minded and unthinking humanity who get sucked into its vortex.

To be fair to the US president, “divide and conquer” tactic definitely was not invented by Obama. It is as old as civilization itself. He is simply employing an old tool in the political toolbox of power hungry rulers to deal with a new problem he is suddenly facing—second term political battle. With it a professed “uniter” becomes a veritable master “divider.” And he is dividing Americans not only on the basis of gender with female votes but also on the basis of economics, bashing the rich and wealthy, including, of course, oil companies, which are the new enemy in the light of high cost of gas that is biting Americans in their wallets. Some analysts have even tossed in race, too, for good measure and they may well be right, but I am not going there just yet. Problem though is that it is not the American way and many Americans are seeing through these desperate tactics as totally petty and un-presidential. Obama can't be fighting everybody at the same time. Yesterday it was Wall-street that must be taxed out of existence to balance the budget. Today, it is oil companies allegedly with too much profit in their hands. The day before, it was the US Congress as the enemy. Next, US Supreme Court justices that would suffer presidential tongue lashing from Obama. Hello, Mr. President. What’s going on? This campaign style is alien to America. Let the boys and girls do the dirty job for you if you must and stay on the high ground exuding grace and confidence and looking presidential. That’s what presidents do to maintain the aura of their office. Presidents do not fling mud around all over the place. All of a sudden Obama has forgotten that the buck stops at the president's desk and his attempts to shift blame is not exactly how Americans want to see their president behave in times of economic and energy crisis. Blaming everyone else but oneself in times of crisis is a mark, not of strength but of weak leadership and there is a foreboding sense that President Obama is already losing his cool, calculated demeanor that had played well for him in the past and beginning to fling mud in all directions. I don't know if the word desperation has anything to do with it.

And finally President Obama proposing to tax the rich out of existence because he obviously needs funds for government's entitlement programs while simultaneously extending the welfare rolls in America, a move that has been characterized as “class warfare,” and seen in certain quarters as decidedly un-American. The threesome, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin would be smiling in their graves to have posthumously succeeded it would appear, in berthing stealth socialism in America in the Age of Obama amid a debilitating $15 trillion debt overhang that is equal to the size of the US economy, in addition to huge budget deficits. He calls it “fair share” in a nation weighed down by the burdens of entitlement programs that are funded by the wealthy, for the most part. It’s the rich and not the poor that create jobs. 

Now, that is a full plate, indeed a mouthful that we must take some time to chew and digest slowly, methodically with studious deliberation in order to avoid discomforting intellectual constipation. We it to ourselves, our children, our society and our world  to accord these matters the seriousness they deserve because our entire world is being turned upside down by a dictatorial band of social engineers behind our backs literally. The question then is, what do these events and conditions enumerated above and many others too numerous to mention here have in common? What is the common thread, if one exists, that runs through them all? It is one thing: They represent the many faces of the liberal monster currently destroying the west from within and may very well do the same to the rest of the world at large if left unrestrained and unchecked for too long. This is becoming a global pandemic. It is so insidious because it is not only operating from within rather than from without infected societies and therefore difficult to identify as such but also because it is operating under various populist guises with the result that it has succeeded in luring and recruiting the high and the mighty to its side who are now its disciples. The good news though is that not everyone has fallen victim of this mass deception. That's right, not everyone is fooled by the mantra of a suddenly invented human right being chanted in our ears or the civil libertarian wand being waved before our eyes to justify, rationalize, or otherwise sanitize what is first and foremost a fundamentally egregiously sinful conduct and so regarded in call human cultures in all of recorded history.

Now, let's get right down to it with some bold statements made recently by prominent Americans in regard to what is currently happening to their beloved country. Concerned Americans have been weighing in. These voices belong to conservatives. Mind you these statements will never come from Democrats who shamelessly and unabashedly describe their party as the “Big tent” that takes in all the weirdos, wackos, and fringe groups in America:

''There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.''---Texas Governor Rick Perry, Republican presidential candidate in his TV ad condemning homosexuality.

"Marriage is a sacrament between a man and woman and to change 3,000 year old tradition because of right of equality you want to create is crossing the line."--Newt Gingrich, Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker, US House of Representatives.

"If I am elected president I will call for constitutional amendment to define marriage as union between a man and a woman."--Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential frontrunner and former governor of Massachusetts.

Yet another presidential candidate, Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann, couldn't wait to sign a pledge for the Iowa based conservative organization, Family Leader, underlining her “vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage…through statutory, bureaucratic, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex.”

“Democracy must be distinguished from liberalism.”---Marwan Bishara, Chief PolicyAnalyst of Al-Jazeera Satellite News and Author of the book, The Invisible Arab:  The Promise and Peril of the Arab Revolutions.

IN ORDER for us to properly digest and situate the countervailing social forces at play in our contemporary world in regard to the subject matter of this piece, it is extremely important that we drill down a layer or two beneath the superficial humanistic narratives that have been craftily spun and deployed by liberal social engineers to becloud our sense of judgment and hit at the core ideological drivers of the present social anomie of a cancerous malignancy gnawing voraciously at the core of our cultural traditions and civilization. In other words, we must examine these issues holistically in their broader rather than individualistic perspectives, because these issues are not isolated or disjointed but elements of a single ideological construct that has several moving parts, which tend to rear their ugly heads like cancerous tumors every now and then to upturn the applecart and upend our moral universe.

This should perhaps compel us to take a step back, take a deep breath and have some profound adult conversation with ourselves about the kind of world we are leaving for our children and future generations, at least for those who have elected and are capable of producing children the natural way rather than through artificial, socialized way via surrogate “mothers” and “fathers.” Furthermore, it should compel us to become a little more cautious and circumspect, if not outright suspicious of the mesmerizing political sloganeering of “Change!” that has become the “opium” of the poor to borrow Karl Marx's phraseology, because even “change,” too, while desirable, could in the end turn out not for the better but for the worse. It's a lesson that has repeated itself over and over again throughout history, to the chagrin of the people who had lapped onto every word of cunning politicians, and I'm afraid, it is repeating itself even today, at least for those who see beyond sugary rhetoric. We must banish sentiments to the backseat and deal with these issues holistically with critical mindset because our moral health revolves around them.

When we do our homework on these burning issues, however, we soon come to the stark realization that Europe, the bastion of imperialism and neocolonialism has a lot to answer for the dark clouds of sexual immorality currently blanketing our moral universe. The signs are indeed troubling and even that is an understatement. Prostitution and pornography are now multi-billion dollar legal businesses in several western nations that exploit womanhood to the core for financial gains. The female physiology is an object of commerce in the West yet the same West hypocritically cries out about “violation” of the “rights” of women in other cultures. The English language itself bristles with degrading verbiage against women. The language is as racists as it is sexist in the way it equates blackness with negativity and the vile words it reserves exclusively for women.

And where else in the world would music artists denigrate women in their lyrics with extremely vile language than in the West? And talk about violence against women: Dead decaying bodies of young women are still being exhumed in the woods in Long Island, New York, murdered in cold blood in gory scenes that are replicated across America extending to wives and kids dispatched to their early graves by their disaffected husbands and fathers. Sexual exploitation of the female body is both social and commercial norm in the West. Let not the West pretend to treat women better than the rest of the world. But is that enough? Will the gods of liberalism be satisfied with that? No, they have come up with a redefinition of marriage to suit their weird social designs to include man and man, and woman and woman—an all-out assault at the core of our values. But will that be enough? Not at all! Liberalism is a restless beast. They will later come up with another redefinition of marriage to include union between man and beast because many of them are already sleeping with beasts even today. Their slogan: Sex without boundaries. That is liberation. Isn't it? Marriage, our most sacred, primordial social institution, which creates the family as the basic social unit in society for the propagation of human race, is presently at the risk of being destroyed, or at best, adulterated—defiled by ultra liberal forces unhinged.

For example, the good and decent people of California, America's largest state and the bastion of liberalism in the United States, alarmed by the antics of liberal social engineers at work in their beloved state rose up and voted overwhelmingly in favor of an electoral measure tagged Proposition 8, which sought to outlaw what they rightly considered aberrant same-sex marriage intrusion into their state in order to help preserve the institution of marriage as we have always known it. For a while that law stood tall as symbol of resistance to counter-culture aberration. To their greatest shock, however, liberal judges lurking in the dark and beholden to the left blatantly upturned the will of the people by declaring the people's decision “unconstitutional,” and, therefore, null and void. Yes, just like that. Does this remind the Nigerian reader of the antics of retired army general, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), and June 12th 1993, presidential election in Nigeria? It is happening in God's own country where a judge can upturn the will of the people at will. An appeal to the US 9th Circuit was fruitless as liberal judges hold sway in the US. One wonders what elections are for if a judge can nullify the will of the people?

Reacting to this ruling Governor Mitt Romney had this to say: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected.” This while Obama, who claims to be against same-sex marriage keeps mum. Well, not really. Hear him: “I think what you’re seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they’ve got to be treated like every other American.” Now, this is the same Obama, who, in 2008, said piously to a reporter when asked about his views about same-sex marriage as follows:  “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman…For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.” Does Obama’s reaction to the court ruling sound to you like someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage? You, the reader be the judge. He says his views are “evolving” and it has taken almost four years for him to make up his mind? That seems pretty indecisive. This flip flopping and pandering can be explained in terms of desperation for gay votes in an election year because I don't see how a mature human being, and a supposed Christian for that matter, could so cavalierly change his position on a matter so fundamental to his Christian faith literally overnight. A man who came to “change Washington” found himself changed by Washington with his every word most regrettably sounding hollow by the day and reeking with insincerity. This is the reason why Obama has lost so much ground with his supporters and his popularity dropping precipitously amongst likely voters in polls.

 IN LOOKING for the source of the counter-cultural winds buffeting the shorelines of literally every continent, however, our binoculars must be trained at nowhere else but Europe to understand its genesis. It is indubitably clear to all that our most solemn values are under relentless assault by those who seek to remake our world in their own warped images by standing the moral world literally on its head; blatantly and unabashedly casting their weird social creatures as artifacts of “modernity” as if to equate modernity with forms of deviant sexual conduct. Yes, sin too, can be modernized. In a sense this is not altogether surprising given the trajectory of western civilization. The more the West develops the less its moral assets become as though development and morality are bi-polar forces of nature. And that couldn't be farther from the truth. When the denizens of Hollywood, the citadel of immorality, are allowed to define and prescribe the moral boundaries of society such boundaries cannot but be infinitely elastic, for a moral Hollywood is a contradiction in terms. This, of course, is bound to elicit moral outrage in the minds of decent people seeking to preserve our moral traditions for future generations rather than allowing them to be thrown to the dogs by sexually maladjusted malcontents. The cultural battle in California is being replicated all over the states in the US with overwhelming successes for the people, who believe in the preservation of our cultural values as shall be seen presently. An example is the veto of the copycat same-sex legislation by outspoken New Jersey Republican Governor, Chris Christie, passed by the Democratic Party dominated legislature recently. And his veto could not be overridden. 

But Hollywood itself where people of faith are scorned and derided as some sort of cultural throwbacks, and where good old religion is anathema; mocked, caricatured and laughed to scorn by liberals, is small potato when juxtaposed with the predatory elephantine Europe. Europe is the wellspring of sexual immorality that has infected the US and that explains why the cultural battle is being waged in the US rather than in Europe which is the primary source of this plague. In this trans-continental cultural warfare, however, a revamped and vastly empowered Europe hitched onto a false religion of liberalism is steamrolling all by waging war against the whole world, including the United States that it is dragging along on its side just as it did during the 2nd WW.  Believe it or not the United States is as much a victim of this plague as any other country outside of Europe. The remarks contained in the quotes above by concerned US leaders, statesmen, and women underscore the depth of outrage that the vast majority of Americans feel about the climate of immorality being foisted on their nation by liberal forces now seemingly empowered and unleashed by the Obama presidency that has somewhat animated the ongoing US presidential primaries. And we should note here that US Democrats are the vessels for the transportation of these cultural effluents. Anyone who has watched utterances by Democratic Party chieftains and operatives would readily notice their deference to European models, which they cite with reckless abandon. In point of fact, Obama's Healthcare Act was copied from Europe, warts and all, and railroaded through Congress when Democrats were in Control of Congress with a super-majority for that matter that is now gone after the 2010 mid- term elections.  

The reader should note the fact that Brussels would not countenance such remarks by leaders anywhere in Europe under EU's overlord-ship. When Republican presidential frontrunners like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum publicly accuse President Barack Obama of working to turn the United States into Europe, therefore, as they have consistently done on the campaign trails, they are not just making reference to “socialist” Europe, but to a Europe that has lost its core traditional Christian values to the plague of liberalism over which a clear battle line is currently being drawn in the next US presidential elections with Obama seemingly leading the liberal charge against the conservatives. Still wondering why Obama is more loved in Europe than in his own country going by results of public opinion polls? It is because Obama and Europeans are ideological soul-mates. Now you know why red carpets are always rolled out for Obama in Europe. He is the ideological bridge between Europe and the United States. But the United States is a different kind of beast for liberals and a hard nut to crack as Obama has since found out. That explains why Obama is having trouble leading the United States. The issue is totally beyond race. It is almost entirely ideological. Believe me when I say that Obama would be far better off in Europe.

If the reader has noticed that this author is a bit soft on the US and rather hard on Europe, it is because having watched the political dynamics in the US it has become completely clear to me that the US is being pulled apart in two opposing directions by liberal secularists who look up to Europe for inspiration on the one hand and by conservatives who cling to their Christian religious values and the constitution to defend their values of freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, amongst others on the other. As such, no condition is permanent in the US. What the Democrats and liberals have encouraged and brought to pass today in the American polity could be swept away tomorrow including of course the same-sex effluents. Depending on the party in power at any given time these two ideological forces vie for recognition and political space and in a most bitter and acrimonious manner oftentimes leading practically to embarrassingly discomforting political gridlocks in Washington, DC. Under GW Bush this moral morass could not have passed. Under Obama it is riding on a freeway. For all practical purposes, the euro-centric Democrats are soul mates of Brussels politicians while the Republicans demand a strong and proactive defense policy to deter and if need be whip her enemies into line, because they understand that freedoms in the United States can only be guaranteed by a strong military. And, by the way, I would recommend that for African nations as well, in particular, Nigeria—not to be used to oppress their peoples, opposition, or for sit-tight leaders, but for the defense of their nations from both internal and external threats and to enable them fashion independent foreign policies rather being mere appendages to foreign policies of other nations.

But America is not Europe and many Americans bristle at the very idea that their leaders are looking up to Europe for inspiration and would rather have it the other way around. Call it patriotism and it is a religion in America. Here again, I would recommend this for African leaders as well for whom that word “patriotism” is meaningless trash. A clear indication that America is not Europe is the spirited challenge being mounted against Obama's Affordable Health Care Act fashioned after European models otherwise known as “Obamacare,” which compels individuals to purchase health insurance plans against their will that 26 state attorneys-general and businesses are challenging in the US Supreme Court that came up last week in what's shaping up to be a landmark case. It is important to note that a great majority of Americans are opposed to that law on the ground that it is overreaching but quasi socialist Europeans would love it. As indicated above Obama copied it from Europe and that fact alone would make Americans to reject it. Yes the very people who voted for Obama are opposed to it because it reminds them of government control of their lives as it is the case in Europe from which the law was borrowed by the Obama administration in all materials particular. And from all indications, going by the three-day arguments in the court, the Obama administration may have overstepped its bounds and the act appears destined for the legislative morgue with its very heart---the individual mandate—gorged out by the US Supreme Court, come June, when judgment will be delivered.

Instructively, sensing judicial defeat, Obama is now directly bullying and intimidating the Supreme Court justices by referring to them as “radical” and “unelected people” for daring to inquire into the constitutionality of the Healthcare law right in the middle of their deliberation which is not only sub-judicial but an extra-ordinary executive interference in a case before the court in which the executive itself is a party. Attacking Supreme Court justices in the middle of a case in which the government itself is a party smacks of desperation and frankly speaking, un-presidential from whichever angle one chooses to view this. The best spin that could be put on his remarks is that he was attempting to lecture or dictate to the Supreme Court justices about how they should handle the case before them, which is blatant executive interference in the judicial branch of the government. To put it mildly, Obama's remarks are distasteful even to a die-hard liberal. His own Attorneys-general has come out to state that the SC has the power, in fact, the responsibility to review the constitutionality of legislative acts. Gosh! I thought that was elementary even for government students in High School. Unbelievable gaffe for a Harvard law graduate!

For the records here are Obama's offensive remarks that have placed the administration in damage control mode, unedited:

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

“Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step." Lawyers in other parts of the world would be aghast at this blatant affront on the judiciary by the president of the United States, for that matter, not some backward nation, as indeed Americans are.

Needless to state that Obama's outrageous comments have alarmed the Supreme Court justices, who have promptly demanded written clarifications from the Obama administration. In response to that request, Obama's Attn. General, Eric Holder, in damage control and cleaning after his boss, personally drafted the response contained in this link: Read the letter (PDF) the short of which states that "The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.” I urge the reader to read the entire reply as it underlines the utterly unnecessary attacks Obama had resorted to in commenting brazenly on a matter pending before the court and the hole he had dug for himself from which he is now struggling to dig out. And this has not been helped by the disappointing job numbers just released for the month of March by the Commerce Department, which might have given the administration some glow to divert attention had they been as good as in the previous four months. To the extent, therefore, that the Obama presidency has demonstrated its liberal bona-fides in the course of his tenure, particularly in this election cycle, it is difficult to address this subject without dragging President Barack Hussein Obama into it so far as the United States is concerned, given the fact that his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been going around the world preaching the gospel of liberalism to whoever cares to listen, and given Obama's own record on this all-important question of our time, that speaks for itself. So, President Obama is fair game not so much about his personality as it's about his destructive ultra liberal policies. I am putting Obama on the spotlight here because his policies bear direct implication for the moral atrophy taking place in the United States on the vexed issue of sexual relationship as among and between the sexes.

Should the reader expect, therefore, that Obama's apologists, liberals, feminists, and so-called humanists, would quickly jump to his defense? You bet. Are there a small number of Africans living in the west, who having committed cultural suicide and adopted western culture would rise to the defense of Obama and the liberal cultural contaminants? You bet. Sure enough, they will be all over the map mouthing scurrilous attacks on Obama's critics. They should understand one thing tough: The Obama aura has worn dangerously thin in the US and that includes the racial solidarity. Leadership is beyond race and ought to be assessed dispassionately with racial blinds. All I need do, therefore, is state factually that when a president's job approval rating has consistently fallen below 50% in poll after poll in an election year, it is a signal that America is tired of the liberal games, and only Americans, not Europeans, and certainly not Africans or Asians, will elect their leaders in accordance with their values, not European, African, or Asian values. When a man who rode to power triumphantly on the crest of popular will barely three years ago suddenly finds himself struggling to return to power and compelled to bullying Supreme Court justices to salvage his only major achievement, if it can be so called, then it is time to reassess the man from a different standpoint. And that reassessment, including his policies is taking place in the US at the moment. Therefore, it is the people's verdict that counts regardless of the wishful thinking of outsiders, who might think themselves more American than Americans. The trouncing of Obama and his Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, which resulted in the liberal Democrats losing the US House of Representatives is pointer to what lies ahead in the next elections and a wakeup call for Obama if he is to salvage his faltering presidency.

I simply couldn't fathom the reasoning behind it, but it certainly does not speak well of Obama fighting literally the Pope by fighting the Catholic Church and other religious groups that have taken his administration to court on the contraceptive issue—all because he sensed that it would galvanize female votes for his re-election. That seems to have now backfired on him because Catholics comprised 28% of the US electorate as Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York City stated in an interview with Bill O'Reily. This is certainly liberalism on steroids and it appears that no areas are off limits to Obama and his liberal cultural demolition squads operating inside and outside the famed White House. Cardinal Dolan described secularism as the “new religion” of liberals because it enables them to avoid religious injunctions and trump Christian values in their official duties. When church is separated from state both go their separate ways and the end point is liberalism on steroids as it is currently unfolding in the west. People tend to follow the easy way and free themselves of all moral and religious strictures if given the chance. As the newly promoted Cardinal rightly pointed out in the said interview on Fox News Network, the very notion that a Christian would be asked to separate his religious beliefs from his political life is wholly artificial and “ludicrous.”

Together with the constitutional amendment providing the right to bear arms by individual citizens, separation of church and state must stand as one of the unfortunate and, I should add, terrible provisions of the US constitution. While the gun rights provisions have succeeded in murdering thousands of innocent Americans year in year out the latest of which is the cold-blooded murder of the black kid, Trayvon Martins, accosted on his way from the store to his father's girlfriend home and murdered in cold blood by a neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman only a few yards away from the home that has created national outrage, separation of church and state has wreaked unfathomable moral havoc on the American society. But both provisions have their devout proselytes to the extent of being treated as inviolable religious principles. While gun rights are favored by Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA)--a Republican Party supporter that is ready to go to war to protect and defend gun rights, separation of church and state is the darling of Democrats, and that for good reasons too, because it enables them to pursue their liberal agenda of secularism without the church breathing down their necks having been thus shunted to the sideline in national affairs. With that said, it amounts to shooting oneself in the foot for a liberal politician to subordinate or even sacrifice his religions values and injunctions on the altar of political expediency. In truth separation of church and state provides no escape route for liberal politicians to ignore religious values. They have simply converted to a new religion of secularism while still carrying the Bible and professing Christianity to take advantage of the Christian votes their treachery and apostasy notwithstanding. That should help explain why Christian Democrats, including supposedly Roman Catholics, have no qualms supporting even late term abortion and contraceptives, and now, same-sex marriage for crying out loud, against strict express Biblical injunctions to the contrary. What the Bible expressly prohibits liberal Christians expressly approve. And who is there to sanction them? And who are we to judge them but their own conscience, if there is still any left in them when the church is separate from the state? It seems clear that the liberals and feminists have declared war on religion, Christianity, in particular, for obvious reasons. It is Western religion to which they belong and over which they could exert the greatest influence and coax it to submit to their liberal agenda. That is the meaning of the code word “Change”. During the 2008 election senator Obama was severally described by conservatives of course as being to the left of candidate Clinton and “the most liberal senator” in the US Senate. And he appears to have richly earned that description today, moving farther and farther to the left until he earns the title “The Liberal King”. What a travesty of history.           

It bears mention that faced with similar situation in his first term when he lost Congress to Republicans, President Bill Clinton moved right of center and succeeded in getting a second term. In contrast President Obama has stuck to his liberal roots seeing his political salvation in liberalism. Suffice it to state that he is in the wrong camp and needs to find his African roots for proper moral direction. Liberalism is a culturally wasting disease that must be fought and defeated by defenders of human civilization and the earlier Obama comes to grips with that fundamental truth the better for him and America and, indeed the world at large due to the immense global reach and influence of the United States.

Without realizing it, Obama has been handed the golden opportunity to help elevate the moral tone of his country that is headed downhill rather than accelerating its descent speed. He is not to promote and glorify sexual perversion. He is there to uphold the law and the constitution and as well as the cultural traditions of his nation. But he has refused to defend an important federal law, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed overwhelmingly by Congress under President Bill Clinton against same-sex marriage that is now under sustained attack from liberals, sensing a liberal friendly Obama administration. He can do defend the laws and the constitution and the cultural traditions of his nation not by aping, copying and grafting European liberal socialist model on the United States, but by staying true to American traditional conservative values that have brought the United States this far in global power and influence. And in doing, so he only has to look to the land of his father and grandfather rather than to Europe on which he seems fixated to draw added inspiration, because in the final analysis American traditional values are no different from African traditional values in their basic essential elements, even with the encroachment of elements of liberalism and feminism in the US. The basics still endure and live on just as they are in other cultures around the world. The choice for Obama couldn't be starker.


Franklin Otorofani is an attorney and Public Affairs Analyst


Custom Search

Join Nigerian Social Network, Make Friends, Share Your Views!

Copyright © 2010 All Rights Reserved. Junk Cars for Cash"> Cash 4 Junk Cars

Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Contact Us | Sitemap | Link to Us | Link Directory | Ohio Newspapers | Philippine Newspapers Potato Soup Recipes Tie a Tie Knot | African Hair Styles  Caida del pelo  auto junk yards | Run Windows on Mac | Free Auto Insurance Quotes | Sell Junk Car |  Sell Junk Cars For Cash How to Jump a Car | How to Junk a Car | Cash for clunkers | Newspapers in Nigeria | Government College Kaduna BPH Prostate | Bladder Problem