Obama’s cult of personality not only made many feel like he was the only one who could heal our nation’s woes, but his own cult leader image drew attention away from his character. So what about his character is so disturbing that he does not want us to see it? Well, quite a lot really.
First of all, Barack Obama is basically a socialist. We must accept that as fact. If you still do not believe it, then look at the evidence. In 1996, when he ran for Illinois State Senate as a Democrat, candidate Obama pursued and subsequently received the endorsement of the New Party, a socialist group that was created by members of the Democratic Socialists for America. If you think this is insignificant, then remember that the New Party is an arm of the Communist Party USA. Do you think we should have heard about this during the election cycle?
Obama has claimed that he was not a member of the New Party, but the New Party’s spring newsletter of 1996 claimed that he was. Truth be told, it does not matter if he actually was a member of the New Party or not. It only matters that he sought the endorsement of an arm of the Communist Party USA and received it.
Another factor in Obama’s association with the New Party is the New Party’s work with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). This is the same ACORN that Obama used to “get out the vote” during the 2008 campaign by awarding their affiliates $832 million. This is the same ACORN that is under investigation nationwide for voter fraud in many elections.
Why was Obama never questioned as to why he used ACORN, a leftist group that apparently cheats in order to elect their candidates, in order to “get out the vote” for his presidential election? If Dr. King’s dream included looking at a person’s character above their race, then it is safe to say that Barack Obama’s character should have been questioned. Instead, Obama was given a pass by the media, in part, because he used symbolic propaganda to hide his nefarious associations and misdeeds.
Do you think I am overreacting here? Well, ask yourself about Obama’s relationship with Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae. Raines, who was placed as the CEO of Fannie Mae by President Bill Clinton, destroyed Fannie Mae and the housing market by massively increasing the amount of home loans to people that could not afford to pay them. This is what helped crash our economy, not supply-side economics or the Bush administration.
After Franklin Raines’ redistribution of wealth scheme crashed our economy, the Democrats then exploited the crash they helped create in order to elect Obama and themselves. Does this sound like a man of character to you? Getting elected by exploiting the socialist manufactured crash of the US economy is hardly a demonstration of good character.
As far as Franklin Raines is concerned, he did not go to jail like the CEO’s of Enron for his corruption. No, Franklin Raines took $90 million of our tax money with him when he was fired for wrecking Fannie Mae and the housing market. Raines was then asked to be a consultant to Barack Obama’s campaign concerning housing issues. Can you believe that? Obama asked Raines, the man who left our housing market in shambles, to be his consultant on housing issues. How is that for character?
Barack Obama is supposed to be concerned for the plight of poor and low-income Americans, right? Well, tell me how a man who cares so much about the poor can spend $170 million on an inaugural party and festivities? How much good can be done on behalf of the American people with $170 million?
President Bush’s inaugural events cost less than one-quarter the price of Obama’s. Yet, the media attacked Bush and accused him of being cold and lacking empathy for the poor. I wonder why they have not done the same with Obama, who spent more than four times the money on his inauguration events?
Rushing to Obama’s defense, some have claimed that Obama received some amount of the money for his inauguration festivities from private donations and that justifies his hefty price tag for the events. However, President Bush used some private donations to fund his two inaugurations too. Why is Obama above reproach?
Let’s look at who those private donors are that helped fund Obama’s inauguration events. The largest body of donors to Barack Obama for his inauguration events came from the same Wall Street executives that were bailed-out in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Obama was a strong proponent of the TARP and now we know why. After taking billions of our tax dollars to supposedly fix the financial woes of Wall Street, Wall Street executives, like those working for Citibank, then returned the favor to Obama by giving him millions of dollars for his inauguration festivities. This sounds like a money laundering scheme of grand design.
When we consider Barack Obama’s relationship with ethically challenged Governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted felon Tony Rezko, who helped Obama obtain his Chicago mansion through nefarious means, terrorist Bill Ayers, megalomaniac Jeremiah Wright, socialist role models Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky, it is safe to say that Obama has a lot of character issues in need of disguise.
Dr. King’s emphasis on character above race is still timely, but how many of us know that he emphasized character above race? What we are subjected to on a daily basis by the media and their left-wing blogger friends is a barrage of cut and pasted sound-bytes that take what Dr. King said out of context.
From comedians like John Stewart, who know literally nothing of the political process, to the vindictive Keith Olbermann, we are given such a skewed misinterpretation of the facts that many Americans simply forget the facts.
If Dr. King’s dream is to be truly fulfilled, we must elect leaders of strong moral character, regardless of their ethnicity. Character matters more than race. Dr. King knew this well. Too bad not enough Americans know Dr. King’s dream in its entirety. We could have elected a President who actually lives up to the hype.