Tag Archives: liberty

Repaving Slave Street


Barack Obama recently said, “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners.” It was while on the campaign trail that Michelle Obama reconnected with relatives and became aware that on her father Fraser Robinson’s side her great-great-great grandparents toiled as slaves in mosquito infested rice fields in the low country of South Carolina.  Up until the Civil War, the Robinson’s lived on a plantation named Friendfield, whose most distinguished historical feature was a dusty, dirt road known as Slave Street.

On her maternal side a similar heritage recently emerged indicating that around 1850 a “negro girl Melvinia,” was bequeathed in a will as a possession of an elderly plantation owner. Melvinia, whose bloodline traces directly to Michelle Obama’s mother Marion, lived in Atlanta, Georgia as a free person and eventually gave birth to a son named Dolphus T. Shields fathered by an unknown white man.

If not for the dichotomy of the overbearing plantation-owner attitude both she and Barack Obama demonstrate–Michelle Obama’s inspiring roots would otherwise be compelling.  In spite of her heritage, it is apparent that neither she, nor the President desire an emancipated America, but rather envision a nation where free citizens become bondservants to the communal effort of a self-appointed taskmaster.

Obama’s approach toward government indicates that he identifies with the slave owners not with the slaves who reside in Michelle’s family tree. Obama should hearken to the words of Abraham Lincoln who poignantly expressed in an April 1859 letter, “…he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

Demanding unquestioning submission, Obama has set about using liberal principles laid as a horsewhip to the back of freedom.  Obama offers the false promise of free honey – beckoning Americans inside the gates of the plantation herding them into the field to work with the goal of collecting sweat to “redistribute” for the common good.

In an effort to retain power through, “leveling the social and economic playing field” Obama’s slave owner policy initiatives tether Americans to a ball and chain style of socialistic governance that is realized by enslaving those who would otherwise be free. The President’s utopian aspiration is on track to transform Americans into chattel trapped within a restrictive dependency, robbing us of God-given liberty, preventing the acquisition of property and thwarting individual pursuit of happiness.

Obama refuses to appreciate that the type of collectivist schema he campaigns for fosters a shadow of the slavery his wife’s ancestors struggled against. With the blood of slaves running through his beloved daughters veins one would think he would be cognizant of the legacy of ex-slaves who, by their staking out and acquiring wealth and personal property, paved the walkway for his family from Slave Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Michelle proudly lauds those in her family, “who out of slavery and emancipation…were smart and worked hard” and because of  “those American values, were able to lift themselves up and begin to set these little foundations that led to me.”  Which begs the question as to why both she and her husband continue to smother those same ideals and instead promote the type of burgeoning debt, which consigns all our children to a form of government imposed slavery? Or, why the Obama administration continues to move forward with plans to impose burdens and regulations that suppress the entrepreneurial spirit that was part of Michelle’s inheritance?

According to the First Lady, it makes sense to her that the patriarch in her lineage was an entrepreneur, who despite slavery, owned property and with “sheer effort and determination was able to build a life.” She then contradicts her own testimony by requiring American citizens “…give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”  One can’t help but wonder if Michelle would have supported Obama demanding her industrious ancestors relinquish their,  “piece of the pie,” so a select few could benefit at their expense?

Truth is if Barack were in charge it would have been hard for Fraser Robinson, and even harder for Michelle’s mulatto great-great-Grandfather, Dolphus Shields to accomplish what they did. By 1900 Dolphus owned his own home and by 1911 opened his own carpentry and tool sharpening business. Dolphus Shields threw off the bonds of slavery and immersed himself in free enterprise.  The benefits of liberty resulted in Dolphus acquiring the type of private property Obama targets and encumbers through the implementation of communalist policies his great-great granddaughter Michelle defends.

After what Michelle’s ancestors suffered how can Barack, with a clear conscience, endorse the reverse plantation mentality of meting out blood and tears in the form of “redistribution of wealth?” Doesn’t Obama know that just like a slave plantation, every faceless person on his socialist estate suffers–rich and poor alike? Nineteenth century political theorist Herbert Spencer once said that, “All socialism involves slavery. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labors under coercion to satisfy another’s desires.”

Based on ancestral sensitivity the Obama’s should be the first to reject that form of slavery and any hint of plantation mentality.  Yet, entrenched in an ideological “main house” they have chosen to ignore the sea of field workers clamoring to retain freedom outside the door. Residing in the lap of luxury, wearing designer couture and rubbing elbows with billionaires Michelle and Barack claim to identify with the, “…scars of slavery that many African Americans still bear.”  But, rather than making them acutely perceptive to the predicament of lost freedom they manipulate family history as a resource to justify enslavement of some for the benefit of others and to substantiate taking millions captive to an aggressive Marxist philosophy.

As a man whose wife is a direct descendent of the legacy of slavery, condoning any human being to labor on an unforgiving socialistic plantation, makes Barack Obama guiltier of exploitation than the anonymous white slavers furtively residing in the darkest corners of Michelle’s family tree.  Barack Obama’s resolve to yoke Americans to an unconstitutional system puts him in the company of those the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln coined as a, “…small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, dictating the course of all of you, and are completely your masters.”


The People’s Proclamation

The March 1On January 22, 2009 the National Mall was packed with people who freely came to the Capitol to witness the historic inauguration of the first African American president, Barack Obama.  Weeping, hugging and optimistic, “More than one million people gathered…in a wintry Washington DC, to see Mr. Obama take the oath. “ On that blustery afternoon a message of biblical proportion filled the air.

I saw a sea of humanity stretching for two miles…All I saw was an awe inspiring body of flag waving humanity breathing and pulsing as one-One Purpose, One Nation, and One Love-with one President to unite us.

That day, Obama addressed the indulgent multitudes vowing to singlehandedly “remake America .” Yet, amidst soaring rhetoric Obama failed to mention the radical ideas he intended to implement in order to institute a socialistic utopia.  At the time, enraptured devotees were ignorant of his ambitions to substitute two hundred years of Constitutional fidelity with a dizzying left wing agenda.  As a result, rather than “everything being all right” the majority now comprehends a shift to the radical “left.”

Less than a year after Obama’s investiture to the highest office in the land, Americans are awakening to rancid winds of hope and change blowing in a direction few want to go.  Even Obama’s most committed devotees have come to realize destiny does not lie in the hands of inexperienced radicals, but depends on individual fortitude and purpose.

And so, a “restless sea of humanity,” consisting of over a reported one million people, streamed into Washington DC for a reason quite unlike the one in January.  Just eight months after Obama’s inauguration a host of citizens have come back to the Capitol raising high the standard of God given liberty; which cannot be taken away even by a powerful President that perceives himself a god.

This new found patriotic fervor is a declaration of independence.  A cause that does not require marinating in a stew of slogans, buzz words, catchy phrases or cult of personality.  Instead, this passion is birthed in dedication to the life force of democracy.  For this occasion, those flocking to Washington came not to worship or venerate a man, but rather to bear witness to abiding egalitarian principles, born from a freedom that is God given, “I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free (Psalm 119:32).”  They assembled in defense of founding values, which never falter or fail but always faithfully “Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Unfurling like time worn parchment down the parade route, the governed came to remind America, lest we forget, governments are “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  The aide memoire… governments are established for one sole purpose, which is securing “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” not the seizure of those rights from lawful possessors.

Those who came to Washington DC came waving a 200 year old document in the face of an elitist ruling class.   Reiterating the words that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive” to the ends of securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

The purpose of the protest was largely informational, directed toward a self-absorbed President and an out of touch Congress.  The message–big government policies and proposals, presently intimidating American security and well being, will not be tolerated by free people. With one voice, the crowd successfully restated the basic principle that institution of government is first and foremost to affect the safety and happiness “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

A million people declared that necessity constrained them to directly address the socialistic system Barack Obama has instituted since the last time they came to Washington to celebrate his inauguration. Their unanimity signifying a collective intolerance to being victimized by overbearing government and an understanding that ignoring abuses would be at great cost to both liberty and lives.

Flowing like a river to the heart of our nation, the concerned came to serve notice on those presiding over the citizenry that these are neither “light nor transient causes.” Obama’s liberal, left-wing “remaking” of the nation is fraught with “abuses and usurpation” and allowing it to continue on its present course can only result in “absolute despotism,” despotism, which is the people’s right and duty to address.  Moreover, they came to warn those securely entrenched in high office that the next election presents an opportunity to “throw off such government and to provide new Guards for our future security.”

Those who protested publically confirmed corporate unwillingness to chance repeated “injuries and usurpations” directed toward America’s elderly and infirm, established institutions, private sector, capitalistic tenets, military strength, religious freedom and Constitutional rights.  They sought to let Washington know that “We the people” are well aware the direction those who govern are taking can only end with the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny “ a path patriotic Americans, regardless of race, creed or color, are duty-bound to prevent.  The gathering in Washington DC let the powerful know, “…we intend to have our voices heard by those whose intent appears to be tyrannical in nature.”

The march on Washington also addressed worrisome occurrences that are strangely reminiscent of a monarchy confronted by our nation 200 years prior.  Protestors asserted that Barack Obama, contrary to how he comports himself, is not a king and that his overconfident aspirations for a second term are on a crash course with failure. The rally attempted to inform the President that it would not serve his political best interest to foolishly miscalculate the will of the American people by being intent on reiterating mistakes similar to the ones the colonists endured at the hands of an overbearing sovereign.  Errors like, “…erecting a multitude of new offices” or “refusal to assent to laws that are wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

One million or more American citizens came to tell those who sit on Capitol Hill that a grassroots movement has been initiated by a coming together of personal recommitment to foundational truth.  The result has produced a faction quite unlike the one predicted on January 22nd and is solidifying as a political force across the “fruited plain.” Its message is one of true hope and enduring change rooted firmly in freedom, liberty and first principles.

The “sea of humanity” that converged on Washington DC on September 12th was an affirmation of a new day dawning in America, a Declaration of Independence from impending authoritarian repression and a clarion call.  A new day whose sentiment does not come from supercilious speechifying or charismatic influence but rather issues forth from deep recesses within the souls of free people.

First Amendment Fatwa


Down through history the only obstacle to independence and liberty being exercised by free people are totalitarian leaders and governments that restrict what God has divinely bestowed on mankind — freedom. Recently, that quest for freedom has emerged in two diametrically opposed protests, one in the United States, and another, thousands of miles away, in Iran. Yet, as both exhibit the intrinsic cry of the human spirit to be free, American president, Barack Obama has essentially brushed aside the significance of both.

Obama’s failure to acknowledge one and denounce the other implies a latent disdain toward free speech and peaceful assembly.  On Tax Day, Obama disregarded free citizens exercising First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and recently, in like manner, failed to forcefully condemn aggression against the Iranian people demanding justice for what appears to be a dishonest election.

Former Supreme Court Justice, William Orville Douglas once said that, “The First Amendment takes confidence in the common sense of our people and in the maturity of their judgment the great postulate of our democracy.” Based on Obama’s blasé stance toward the first of our Constitutional rights, could it be that he doesn’t believe the public has common sense or maturity of judgment?  Does he think the American electorate should be prevented from speaking out in protest against government autocracy? One has to wonder whether the power of the people’s voices irritate Obama because the president seems to bristle at the sight of large numbers of people demanding to be heard.

In April over a half a million American citizens exercised their First Amendment rights at nation-wide tea parties.  Citizens gathered to voice discontent with taxation, government regulation, over-spending, bailouts, government control of production and the redistribution of wealth.  Yet, as five hundred thousand Americans peacefully protested, the White House reported that Obama was, “…unaware of the Tea Parties.” Obama, threatened by populist disapproval of his tax and spend agenda, chose to ignore and disregard the dissent of those he views as his detractors.

When the president did choose to address the demonstrations he did so in a derogatory style.  He coupled derision for the protesters with criticism of a major news organization, which he never fails to mention in a deprecating manner. The president interpreted the free exercise of First Amendment rights by thousands of Americans as “…folks waving tea bags around.” The leader of the free world’s smarmy description appeared to be an attempt to demean the power of the right to assemble in peaceful protest, an odd reaction from the one who swore to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees Americans those rights.

Obama is not secretive about his disdain for opposing viewpoints.  During the run-up to the election Obama was, “…convinced that if there were no Fox News, he might be two or three points higher in the polls.”  More recently he blamed Fox News exclusively for the growing opposition to his health care policy saying, “First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.”  Does Obama consider his policy initiatives so crucial that he might justify potentially quelling open debate by news organizations viewed as adversarial to his agenda?

Obama’s comments and attitudes toward protests, contradictory news organizations and pundits sound frighteningly like what is being heard in Iran. In an attempt to silence all media and quash the election protests the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have taken action against what they refer to as “deviant news sites“.  Much like Obama, the present powers of Iran believe that open and free press curtails theocratic control, undermining the mullahs plan to remain in power.

Defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi called for the protest rallies in response to what he called a “shameful fraud” in the supposed landslide re-election Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Protesters responded by risking their lives to march in silent challenge to the authority of Iran’s despotic regime. Ordinary Iranian people hungry for freedom, demanding justice boldly flout both violence and intimidation in Tiananmen Square defiance.

The bravery of common Iranian citizens defying their government to peacefully assemble and publicly protest has been met with very little support from an American president who appears to brush aside the political courage of a new generation of Iranian freedom fighters. Iran’s youthful protesters are exercising what can only be described as a version of American First Amendment rights. Obama’s response begs the obvious question, does he view thousands of Iranian reformist candidate supporters, adorned in green and waving photos of defeated Mousavi, the same way as the folks he described on April 15th as “waving around tea bags?

Obama’s only response has been to prematurely announce Admadinejad’s victory followed up by expressing what he says is “deep concern” about the results.  Curiously, he then articulated that it is not, “…productive…to be seen as meddling…in Iranian elections.” Barack Obama declined the opportunity to voice support for democratic reform from repressive despots.  He morally equated condemning vicious governmental crackdown on peaceful protesters as interfering.   Obama enthusiastically meddles when wresting the means of production from the American private sector but when enslaved people fight for democratic ideals Obama avoids voicing his opinion for fear of being viewed as intrusive.

A disturbing trend is emerging. Obama trivializes abuses against citizens of oppressive regimes fighting for democratic rights and is attentive toward the rights of Black Panthers intimidating voters outside polls during an American election. It stands to reason that Obama, who may have benefited personally from electoral dishonesty and inconsistency, would find it hard to condemn Iranian elections where, “People feel humiliated because they came and voted in large numbers,” yet, their vote went unrecognized

As our nation watches the violence against peaceful protest and free press in an oppressive nation it would be wise to pay close attention to subtle nuances and similarities with our own president’s actions. Some leaders believe that their political agenda justifies the means of attaining power.  Obama seems to display an acute awareness that his condemnation of Iran’s power grab could threaten his own authority.  His lack of action and reaction illustrates an obvious disdain for the political nemesis of peaceful protest.

Our leader swore to uphold the Constitutional rights of every American and to insure the safety of our freedoms. Yet, Obama ignores peaceful protest by large portions of the American electorate, views free press as a menace, and seems to demand total compliance from citizens and media alike.  And, as the world waits, he chooses to remain silent as Iranian reformers are beaten and die on the streets of Tehran fighting for the rights he swore to champion.

The example of fearless Iranians, marching through the streets of Iran, behooves Americans to continue to worship, speak, write, petition and gather, notwithstanding the potential of future costs to our own well being.  Americans have been passed, from those who fought and died for freedom, the torch of truth, common sense and maturity. Despite our leaders, we are ultimately responsible for the great postulate of democracy remaining intact.  We remain the beacon to a world that cries out for God given rights to liberties, which presently are jeopardized in a great nation where once they were secure.

%d bloggers like this: