On August 28, 1963, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream for America.
Exactly forty-five years later, on August 28, 2008, Senator Barack Hussein Obama II wants to convince you that he is the fulfillment of that dream.
Is he? Or, is he the antithesis of that dream?
“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.”
I’d say we’ve achieved that part of Martin’s dream.
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”
A prerequisite to believing that we are created equal is believing that we are created. Darwinism is the antithesis of that, and the more the lie of evolution is taught and the truth of Intelligent Design is suppressed, the farther we get from Martin’s dream. Darwin’s work promoted racism through the concept of “favored races”. The full title of Darwin’s famous work was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, and his work directly contributed to the horrific “scientific consensus” of eugenics, which was formulated by Sir Francis Galton by drawing on the work of his cousin Charles Darwin.
So which side is Barack Obama on? Is he on the side of those like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and our country’s founders, who believed that we were created, and created equal, by God? Or, is Barack Obama on the side of the Darwinian Evolutionists?
I say he’s on the side of the Darwinian Evolutionists, and that is the antithesis, not the fulfillment, of Martin’s dream.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
What does “not be judged by the color of their skin” mean to you?
To me, it means that we should be “color-blind“. We shouldn’t see people for the color of their skin. That is superficial and a distraction from what is truly important. We should be looking deeper and looking at the content of their character. We should be talking about character and not talking about skin color or “race”. We are all one human race. Talking about skin color differences and “race” differences is divisive…doing so is unecessary and it is the antithesis of Martin’s dream.
Barack Obama delivered one of the most racist and divisive speeches I have ever heard, using references to race and skin color 123 times…
It’s very enlightening to examine the “Words, just words” that Obama used in that speech. Even though slavery was ended over 142 years ago, when our union was made “more perfect” through the 13th amendment to our Constitution, Obama mentioned the words slave(s), slaveowners, and slavery no less than seven times in his speech. Does repeatedly bringing up that dark past help unify us? No. Obama is not trying to heal racial wounds. He is trying to stir up anger and other negative emotion. He mentioned the word “anger” no less than 10 times. Over 35 times he spoke other emotionally-charged words like discrimination, injustice, cynicism, divisive, resentments, bias, bitterness, exploited, fears, shame, wrong, tears, and violence.
The “Change” Obama wants is a Socialist Revolution. He is trying to use racism in order to form a more Socialist union. When you vote for or against someone simply because of their skin color, that is racist. To vote for Barack Hussein Obama II simply because he is “African-American” is racist. What is not racist is to vote against Barack Hussein Obama II because he is a Socialist (Obama said in a debate with Hillary Clinton that higher capital gains tax rates, while proven to generate less revenue, should be pursued anyway in the interest of “fairness“). If I vote against Obama because he is a Socialist, some will claim I’m not voting for him because I’m racist. They are wrong. Am I a Capitalist? Yes. Am I a racist? No. My hope is for the first “black” president to be Michael S. Steele.
In the midst of that racist speech, Obama had the audacity to say this:
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
People are hungry for unity, but that’s not what Obama is offering. The one viewing Obama’s candidacy “through a purely racial lens” is Obama himself. If a light skinned person spoke of
“some of the blackest populations in the country”
that person would be called a racist. So why is it OK for Obama to speak of
“some of the whitest populations in the country”
Why is he praised for that? Why is Obama praised for saying, “we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans”? In my eyes, we are all “Americans”, period. Full-stop.
It is divisive, not unifying, to refer to some Americans (born in the USA, not Africa) as “African Americans” and other Americans as “white Americans”. I remind you that Martin said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin…”
Is Barack Hussein Obama, II the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream?
No. Barack Hussein Obama is the antithesis of Martin’s dream.
August 12th UPDATE:
In the racial bean-counting contest, I give Obama a score of 123.