The Ethos of Obama's Change

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~   Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

While our freedom has been under siege for quite a while, historians of the future will most likely look back on 2009 as the year that President Obama's pledge to fundamentally transform America would become a reality. With complete disregard to our constitution and the learned wisdom of nation's forefathers, Obama would sign legislation that would in essence subjugate one of our foremost human rights to the dictates and opinions of other men.   In October of 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law hate-crime legislation that would criminalize one's very thoughts, thus delivering the coup de grâce for freedom in America. At that moment and with the stroke of a pen, the ardent deep-held religious beliefs and convictions of millions of Americans would no longer be sacrosanct and the free expression thereof criminal...

Obama's change has brought about a Kafkaesque transmogrification in America where fear is ubiquitous. It is the fear of being ostracized, the fear of reprisal, of retribution, the fear of financial or personal ruin, that have forced Americans from all walks of life to practice self-censorship in every aspect of their daily lives.   It is self-censorship that forces one to choose between one's own dignity and self-respect and an individual or the safety and security of not only themselves, but of their their friends and family. It is the worst kind of censorship because it thrives on hypocrisy, sycophancy, and mendacity   It is self-censorship that infringes upon one's freedom of thought, and it is our freedom of thought that serves as the very progenitor of all our other freedoms. There is nothing in this world more destructive to human rights than self-censorship.

Perhaps even more insidious than the law itself is the continued promotion of the fallacy that the purpose of the law is to protect the rights of minorities. The purpose according to Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, for whom the law is named after, is "to strike fear into the heart of the community". A community and their collective hatred that Ms. Shepard continues to feel is partially, if not equally responsible for her son's brutal murder.

Obama's actions are not without historical precedent, from the fires of Qin to the the sinking of the Weimar Republic, it is the breach with cultural and religious tradition that is symbolized in a physical act, but as always, the essence of the ongoing revolution is mental.   In the circumstances that we are faced with here it's not just the mental revolution itself but of the profound symbolism of the physical act, for the gay rights movement, this wasn't just another milestone in their campaign for gay rights, this was Barack Obama their ecumenical saviour unsheathing his sword and leading them across the Rubicon.

For a leader to force change upon his people is to lift a sword against them, a sword that's sole purpose is not to preserve life, but to take it. Having chosen the path of the warrior as opposed to that of the statesman brings us to the bitter realization that the êthos of Obama's fundamental change is not egalitarianism it is totalitarianism.

For Obama's ideologues and the gay rights advocates, having now crossed the Rubicon and being inspired not just by physical act itself, but moreso by the outlawry of it, the revolution has taken on a form of totalitarian intolerance. A recent example of this totalitarian intolerance was the lynching of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame for simply expressing his thoughts on homosexuality. Rather than engaging Mr. Robertson, the left exposed their own bigotry and intolerance by virulently attacking him and demanding that he be silenced. Kudos to Mr. Robertson for refusing to apostate himself as the left had demanded. Ironically, this time around, the revolution is not just being televised but downloaded and watched by an audience of millions globally, many who are experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives and who recognize recrudescent totalitarianism when they see it. Sadly the left, remains oblivious to the fact that the world has been down this path before, and yet the advocates of this perverse militant egalitarianism continue to march on, led on by Obama's legions of jackbooted apparatchiks.

For Barack Obama, now refusing to lay down his sword, alea iacta est.   Bolstered by his own unbridled narcissism, Obama now wields his sword with a religious fervour against the rest of the world in the belief that "from the ashes will rise the phoenix of a new spirit" of egalitarianism not only in America but throughout the world. Obama's belief is nothing more than an illusion, for it's only in mythology that a sword can cut through Gordian knots.

There is no 'obama-ethos'; he's a puppet. He didn't write his own books. None of his academic career (barf) is in the public domain, save timeline. He was 'anointed'. Obamacare wasn't written by him nor anyone in the Administration; it was a 1000-page edict massaged with 1000 pages of regulatory chains.

It would have been more accurate to write of 'the Pathos of bama's change' or, for that matter 'the ethos of progressives'.

The 'ethos' is that of the puppet master(s) & their sheeple. Respectfully, IMHO.

For example, this is quoted of Shrillary:

"Throughout the 1980's, we did hear too much about individual gain and the ethos of selfishness and greed. We did not hear enough about how to be a good member of a community, to define the common good and to repair the social contract. And we also found that while prosperity does not trickle down from the most powerful to the rest of us, all too often indifference and even intolerance do."

Hillary Rodham Clinton. From her commencement speech in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania, using a 'racial crisis' for attention (see the Water Buffalo Incident, or this).

I get your point. I really do. I read some of your other posts on your blog under 'Barack Obama'; I particularly like something I never read before:
Audacity of Hope was translated in Indonesia for print and, when reverse-translated, came to "Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House".

How perfect.

I really wish the full translation of an Indonesian article was available. The original was here, but is no longer posted.

I object to the use of 'warrior' for bama. He is not a 'warrior'; he is a Marxist preaching as an egalitarian. The 'sword' is not bama's, but Conservatives' here in the US. alea iacta est would be a fitting cry of rebellion; I find it non-sensible to be assigned to a puppet. Most Conservatives knew what it meant when Hillary stepped down, particularly when more became known about the 'puppet'. We also knew what it meant when he stole the election for a 2nd term.

You do reference them with "advocates of this perverse militant egalitarianism"; why doesn't anyone write aggressively about the Puppet Masters? The 'fear of reprisal' is real here; not so much overseas (unless you're in range of CIA drones.../s). This does NOT end with January 21, 2016 unless a 'dramatic shift' occurs in the next 23 months...cynicus, I am.

Dear FRiend,

I read the "ethos" of Obama's change, not the ethos of Obama.

My attempt was to point out that equality is simply a ruse, the ethos of the movement is totalitarianism.

Regardless of who the "sword" belongs to, it is Obama who picked it up and now wields it.

It is metaphor. A sword used usher in an era of change and sever our link with the past.

It is the threat against the world rather that the use if diplomacy .....

And as I stated - For a leader to force change upon his people is to lift a sword against them, a sword that's sole purpose is not to preserve life, but to take it. Having chosen the path of the warrior as opposed to that of the statesman brings us to the bitter realization that the êthos of Obama's fundamental change is not egalitarianism it is totalitarianism.

My attempt was to point out that equality is simply a ruse, the ethos of the movement is totalitarianism.

Again, I hear you you. But it's not about the man; nor is it about totalitarianism. He was 'put in power'. I have concerns about foreign influence, but it's patently obvious that this is not the work of one man and that most of the influence is domestic (agency and, unfortunately, both parties). The 'man' is a distraction from the larger purpose.

I agree with most of your points. My read is that you give far too much credit to the man. If this were Russia, or any other country without our model Constitution, I'd agree 100%. In the U.S., he's a 'useful idiot', schooled (at least) by Frank Marshall Davis. To accept your creative & intellectually-written metaphors about the man one can only conclude that 'it' ends with the man.

'It' will not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.