ObamaCare.
Oh yeah. Me and my beelzebud. We done it. We pulled off forcing the Americans to take their medicine–and all it took was a bit of snooker! Even I didn’t see that one coming. But it’s done. Happy days are gone again, my friends.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Forward, my friends!
Really?
I was amused this week, my friends, at all the feigned surprise when my beelzebud Obama actually came out of his CINO (Christian in name only) closet to support gay marriage. REALLY? Really?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It’s news that Obama supports gay marriage?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh, I love the world I’ve created where one’s actions are ignored and their words, as empty or lying as they may be, are taken at two-face value. In this case, the fact that people actually “wondered” what Obama’s views on same-sex marriage might be proves my great power on earth.
Let me impart some wisdom to you, my readers. This will come as no surprise to long-time readers of this blog. (You can search on “Obama” to see all my brilliant analysis of this, my favorite US citizen). But I’ll tell you a sure-fire (so to speak) way to know everything Obama would do for any given topic.
Ready?
Here it is: for any given topic, subject, decision, statement, etc., simply ask yourself what would Satan do (WWSD)?
Alternatively, you could ask WWJD, and then do the opposite. In every case, however, you will find that WWOD is exactly the same as WWSD.
In this case, for example, between Jesus and I (moi) which one supports same-sex marriage?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
And Obama?
See how easy it is?
Obama, my CINO-in-chief, thrills me with his consistent faithfulness in carrying out my will on earth as it is in Hell.
In fact, I challenge you, my servants, to come up with one decision, policy, action, or other verifiable display of belief that could not easily be inserted as an answer to the question, “WWSD?”
Try it.
It’s like a game.
A game that illustrates an important game that I’m winning.
Because I’m Liberal One.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Fluke.
It’s not a fluke, I suppose, my friends. And it’s not your fault. I leaked some kingdom knowledge in my February 12th post, and I forgot to remind you to keep it confidential. And one of you must have blabbed. It looked bad, and I’ve laid low this past week trying to salvage my self-inflicted bad fluck–I mean luck.
My faithful readers will understand.
Just weeks ago I was beaming with pride as the American liberals insisted on putting their hands on (and in) women’s bodies by dictating through their dictator that all forms of birth control must now be dictated as part of the welfare dole for all women.
Imagine my delight in the twisted logic of liberals: Liberal women love to chant “Keep your hands off my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to kill the products of conception. But they chant “Put your hands on my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to free contraception.
Go figure.
Liberal women see no inconsistency in demanding control of other people’s money because they have no control over their own money, much less their own bodies.
I was ahead of the spin curve on this, my friends, and it almost cost me dearly.
Recall that I previously dealt with the controversy of the Obama administration’s demand that all employers, including those having a Biblically informed religious conscience, pay for all forms of contraception of its employees.
At the time I was revelling in my great success in confounding the Americans with mediaswirlification around “women’s rights” and “religious liberties.”
But what everyone was missing was my main goal in this, which went to the heart of freedom! Yes, everyone seemed to be missing the fact that a modern dictator was dictating to private entities what they must provide free to others.
The dictator was dictating that other people must, based on His Dictateness alone, pay for the sex needs of all women everywhere, including one Ms. Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old privileged law student going to one of the most expensive law schools in the country.
In a fit of pride, I gloated a rhetorical question: “Where are the sane Americans?”
Remember?
And then I asked this fateful question:
Where is someone to stand up and tell Ms. Keely and Ms. Sandra to stop begging for someone else’s money and control their own friggin’ bodies or go pay for their own damn birth control?
Well, that’s when my luck turned, and out of nowhere surfaced One Sane American.
My fit of pride became fit to be tied as I listened daily for the next week or so as One Rush Limbaugh, a seemingly singular voice of sanity, picked up on my tactic and drove home the point daily: this issue is bigger than “women” and “religion;” it goes to the heart of FREEDOM.
Blechhhh!
Did someone leak my kingdom strategy to Mr. Limbaugh?
Of course someone did.
But what was I to do? Mr. Limbaugh has an audience of millions, an engaging (sometimes enraging) style, and a way of putting the complex into simple terms that anyone but liberals can understand.
He is Conservative One, and he nailed this one: on what basis should taxpayers or insurers (i.e., other people) be required to pay for women’s recreational (and apparently uncontrollable) sex needs?
I recall one of Mr. Limbaugh’s more lucid analogies. He imagined a neighbor knocking at his door and telling him that she didn’t have any money for birth control. And then, after getting a “so what?” look from him, he imagined her telling him that she wanted him to pay for her birth control.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
But that is exactly what Ms. Fluke is doing.
Exactly.
Ms. Fluke is knocking on every American’s door and demanding that they pay her so she can go get contraception to have all the sex she wants with guys who are apparently getting all the free sex they want.
And I was truly worried that Mr. Limbaugh’s golden microphone might blow my stratetacticification.
And then. . .
Oh, am I one lucky devil.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Mr. Limbaugh, in trying to illustrate absurdity said what many were thinking–paying for Ms. Fluke’s lack of self-control and sex life? What does that make her??
What do you call women who have no self-control in the area of sex, and take other people’s money for it?
But, of course, the days when loose women were shamed are long gone.
Now, Ms. Fluke’s parents are supposed to be proud of her.
Hey, I know I am.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
And Mr. Limbaugh?
Well, he flew a little too close to the flame.
Conservative One, meet Liberal One.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
(Oh, but he’ll be back.)
Blechhhh!
Religion.
What would a “war on religion” really look like? I have ensured for the moment that “religion” in much of the world is associated only with theistic beliefs, especially Christianity. In the United States, for example, the venerable “separation of church and state” is really only an excuse to separate Christianity from state.
And separate it I have.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That’s why I found it amusing today, my friends, when I read this headline on Fox News: Perry TV Ad: I Can Defend Faith from Obama’s “War on Religion”.
Obama’s “war on religion“?
I don’t think so, my friends. But I’m glad others do.
You see, Obama has no beef with my religions, including those which embrace the theology of atheism. In fact, Obama makes peace with all belief systems that reject Godly morals, Godly behavior, and Godly thinking.
His policies and public statements prove my words to all who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Fortunately, of course, I get doubly blessed because I’ve stopped most ears and blinded most eyes.
It’s what I do.
So Governor Perry can carry on all he likes about Obama’s “war on religion.”
I just hope he and others never figure out that it’s really just a war on Truth, which is another way of saying it is merely a war on Christianity.
Because there are many religions (in fact, all but one) which I love!
Peace. And quiet. My friends.
Clue.
Do you know what you call a Catholic who does not hold to Catholic teaching? Well, apparently you still call him or her a “Catholic”. And because I’ve hoodwinked large swaths of “Catholics” (quotes necessary, sorry) to continue self-identifying as Catholics, the entire institution is headed to destruction.
Not that that’s a bad thing, of course.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Let me illustrate, my servants. There is hardly a better object lesson in Catholic split personality disorder than the Catholic response to President Barack Obama. According to Michael Gerson’s opinion in today’s Washington Post, entitled, “Obama turns his back on Catholics,” 54% of Catholics supported Obama’s election!
54%!
More than half of Catholics supported a man who has absolutely no clue about Christianity, including Catholicism. More than half of Catholics supported a man who wholeheartedly, without apology, with a proven record, supports abortion. (Obama only reluctantly stops short of wholeheartedly supporting infanticide). More than half of Catholics supported a man who throws his support behind homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and forcing every American to celebrate it with him.
Someone needs to get a clue.
Either Obama needs to get a clue. Or . . .
Ha ha ha ha ha.
You see, my friends, I am the clue-hider. With clues lying around like blinking strobe lights of anti-Catholic sentiment, I still duped 54% of Catholics, oops, “Catholics,” into supporting Obama.
Oh, I’m good.
But even better than getting those 54% to support a man who hates their values, I have even convinced God-believing institutions to support a man who continually saddens the heart of God.
As Gerson states, in 2009 I convinced the University of Notre Dame to invite “a champion of abortion rights to deliver the school’s commencement address.”
Clue, anyone?
In his address at the University of Our Lady, Obama made clear that “ladies” on earth would trump God when he lied about “honor[ing] the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.” Obama spoke of “ensuring that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of [already born] women.”
Clue, anyone?
Obama has not turned his back on Catholics; he always had his back to Catholics. Just as he has always had his back turned to God.
But, as Gerson documents, fortunately for Obama, 54% of clueless Catholics had his back.
Gerson continues:
Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Why? I’ll bet you can guess.
Close. Here’s why: because, as Gerson writes, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), using federal grant money, administers programs that aid victims of human trafficking don’t refer for abortions. And because they won’t refer for abortions, the HHS last month abruptly ended its funding.
According to Gerson:
It did not matter that an independent review board had rated the bishops’ program more effective than those of its competitors — or that career HHS employees objected to the politicized handling of the grant.
The HHS defended its decision because it was “giving preference to grantees that offer ‘the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.’”
Clue, anyone?
The HHS, my servants, like Obama himself, has a short list of nonnegotiables. And one of them abortion. No matter what he says in feigned support of a pro-life position, he is lying. It is clearly apparent to anyone with a clue.
But, because clues are in short supply, instead we get Sebelius at the HHS, of whom Gerson writes:
Sebelius — an outspoken pro-choice Catholic — has a long history of conflict with Catholic authorities.
Does anyone see the clear contradiction here? Actually, no, which is a sign of my great skill in clue-hiding. No one recognizes the clear oxymoron in that sentence, like describing someone as a 6-foot tall midget. It is definitionally impossible.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Gerson concludes:
Sebelius is becoming a political embarrassment at an inconvenient time. It will be significantly harder for Obama to repeat his appeal to Catholic voters while a part of his administration is at war with Catholic leaders and Catholic belief.
Actually, it won’t be hard at all.
Because most Catholics are “Catholics”.
And Obama knows they have his back.
Someone does, after all, have a clue.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Illiterate.
Here’s a question for you, my servants: what’s the difference between someone who can’t read the Bible, and someone who doesn’t? If you can answer that question correctly you are well on your way to understanding how I establish my kingdom on earth as it is in Hell. Because the primary obstacle to my complete control on earth is the presence of the Bible in the hands of men who are not ashamed and who correctly handle the word of truth. Blechhh!
So what’s the difference?
Right! Nothing!
There is no difference between the person who can not read the Bible and one who does not read the Bible.
I give you credit, my faithful friends; it took me years to learn that one. For centuries I tried to destroy the Bible, ban the Bible, burn the Bible, and in every way possible try to remove the Bible from the face of the earth. I had my kings issue edicts, my councils draw up penalties, and my lords punish publishers.
To no avail.
I failed at every effort. Despite my worst, the Bible grew to be the perennially best-selling book of all time. I must say, my servants, it was quite embarrassing.
And then I noticed something. All over the earth every best-sold Bible tended more often than not to sit on a table or shelf unopened. Comfortable Christians and those who call themselves Christians the world over bought Bibles aplenty, only to leave the holy words in the dark confines of closed pages.
So I changed my tactics, my servants. Rather than try to stamp out the Bible, I started distracting Christians. Sometimes I used the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of this world, sometimes I used trials and tribulations. In either instance, 9 times out of 10, the Christian left the Bible unopened.
Today, even in many churches across Western cultures the Bible remains unopened.
I’m good. I’m really good. (And humble).
And when Christians leave their Bibles unopened, the culture at large becomes Bible illiterate. And a Bible illiterate culture moves like water downhill to a culture that does my will on earth.
Let me give you an example that made us laugh down here today, my servants. According to an AFP story in Yahoo!News entitled, Obama: God backs jobs plan, President Obama, who I can assure you rarely reads the Bible for meaning, said today that “even God wanted to put Americans back to work.”
Now, of course God does want Americans working, but what is President Obama doing channeling what God “wants”? Since when does Obama care what God wants? What, Father Obama do you think God wants for unborn children? What, Rabbi Obama, do you think God wants with respect to the marriage covenant?
Huh?
In fact, Obama’s clumsy Biblificity came in the same breath as he rebuked Congress for passing a bill reaffirming the US motto “In God We Trust”!
Ha ha ha ha ha.
But it gets better, my friends.
Obama further showed his theological mala fides as he exposed his Bibleignoranimity by stating:
I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.
Just where does God say this, Rev. President?
The fun got funner when Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, denied that Obama had gone too far in ignorantly representing a God he does not know, by clarifying:
I believe that the phrase from the Bible is ‘the Lord helps those who help themselves’.
Actually, Brother Carney, that phrase is not in the Bible.
And now the funner fun gets even more funnerific. Right Reverend Carney, according to a Politico.com story, is quoted in the full quote as saying:
Well, I believe the phrase from the Bible is, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” And I think the point the President is making is that we should — we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Do you see what is happening, my friends?
Remember a person who does not read a Bible is no different from a person who does not have a Bible.
Here we have two Bible illiterates trying to invoke the Bible for a liberal talking point. Not only do Obama and Carney “quote” a non-Biblical truth as Biblical, Carney then uses the non-Biblical quote to stand for the exact opposite proposition!
What Carney said: “God helps those who help themselves. Therefore, we must help the people (because apparently God does not).”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
And these people control your country, you Americans.
Close.
We are very close to my will on earth as it is in Hell.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Pander.
I love to cater to or profit from the weaknesses or vices of others. Did you know that? Of course you did. I look for the weak, the vulnerable, the discouraged. And when I find them, do you know what I do? I woo them into a false sense of security in my lies and deceit. And when I have them wrapped up in a dependent state of false security, I do everything I can to destroy them.
It’s who I am.
My yoke is hard, my burden is heavy.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
So you know, my servants, that I gain great satisfaction when I see an earthly servant emulate my genius, and I saw it today. Yes, I witnessed a politician in full pander mode. And not only was this a beautiful example of pandery at it’s best, the panderific panderification was done by no less than His Majesty (that always gets a laugh down here), Barack Obama, US President and Panderer in Chief.
I’m referring to a story that ran in the Washington Times today, my servants. Joel Gehrke’s commentary in Beltway Confidential entitled, “Obama asks CBC for Biblical faith in his agenda,” chronicles Obama’s latest attempt at pulling off one of the oldest tricks in the book (after all, it is my trick, and I am by definition one of the oldest tricksters around): pandering.
But Obama, believing he can excel where others merely imitate, pandered awkwardly by appealing to the religious faith of black voters. You see, whenever an unbeliever (in God) tries to act like a believer (in God) the dissimulation always makes the actor look a bit silly and disingenuous, like a student who failed to read an assignment attempting to answer a teacher’s question. What must seem like a great performance to the student appears pathetic to everyone else.
According to Gehrke’s commentary,
President Obama made an appeal to the religious faith of black voters at a Congressional Black Caucus rally, likening Biblical prophets who had faith in God — and so refused to worship an idol — to the black voters who “keep the faith” by supporting him and his policies – and, he hopes, his reelection campaign.
Obama, who had already told blacks to “stop complainin’“, must think that no one can see his pandereligosophistry. He went so far as to analogize faith in him to the faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three captive Jews who were thrown in a fiery furnace because they would not worship according to the policies of their particular pandering political leader.
Huh?
Well, Obama, who I ensure has no concept of true faith in God, clumsily continued that analogy, equating, as Gehrke wrote: the Jews’ “faith in the things not seen” to the more mundane “belief that if you persevere a better day lies ahead.”
You see what I mean? Not a clue.
Let me clue you in, my servants. The faith of the Jews was not a faith in some foggy “things not seen;” it was a faith in a living God, a God whose decrees must be kept even unto the point of death under a contrary political regime. They were not persevering for “better days ahead.” Their faith was a faith to die for.
I hate those with the faith of those three captive Jews. That faith produced a fourth Person in that fiery furnace, and that faith continues to produce that Person among any two or three gathered today . I could not stand against that Person then, and I cannot stand against that Person today.
Obama, because I’ve made him Bible illiterate, further trivialized the Jews so-called faith “in things unseen” as “crazy faith.” And Obama, because I’ve also made him God-illiterate, trivialized himself by analogizing “crazy faith” in him to “crazy faith” in God.
My oh my, I am good.
I’m crazy good.
And because most people in the US are also Bible and God illiterate, Obama’s vain foolishness goes almost unnoticed. Which is good, because rarely do my lies and deceptions get such blatantly pathetic public display. Such obvious, awkward attempts at religisopolitcalpanderifity tend to work against my kingdom goals.
Worse yet, in this case, where Obama’s duplicity did get noticed, it got noticed by someone not fooled. As Gehrke concluded:
The only “kind of crazy” on display in this speech is the one that says faith in Obama’s policies is kind of like faith in God.
He’s right.
That’s why I hope Gehrke’s view does not get broader press coverage.
Crazy, man.
HT to Weasel Zippers!
Rule of Law.
Two stories today, my servants, that seem unrelated but are actually intricately bound up in a societal dynamic of my making. I am so proud. You will be too. Let me explain.
I first read in my morning reading by the fire a story from Religion Dispatches entitled, “Christocrat Competition” about US presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s choice of former US senator Zell Miller as his campaign’s co-chair.
Remember Zell Miller?
As Sarah Posner reminds us in her piece, Mr. Miller gave a speech in 2004 on the floor of the Senate asserting that America was on the road to moral ruin because of the separation of church and state.
I know, my servants. I know.
Of course Mr. Miller is self-evidently right, but fortunately self-righteous fools like Ms. Posner do not see self-evident truths.
I do all I can to ensure blindness to the obvious.
In this case, Ms. Posner recounts with measured horror that Mr. Newt’s choice said in the same 2004 speech:
Everyone today seems to think the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. I guess you could ask any 10 people if that is not so and I will bet you most of them will say, well, sure that is so. And some would point out that is in the First Amendment. Wrong.
I know, my servants. I know.
This kind of talk scares the you-know-what out of me. If ever the Americans catch on to my “separation of church and state” lie my American kingdom of secular folly will crash, reducing the Americans back to their original moral order.
And their original moral order was not my moral order.
Let me share some kingdom knowledge with you my servants–knowledge that will tie in with the second story I mentioned above. Please, if there is anyone who can see your screen right now, casually switch to this website, read it carefully while you wait for the potential eavesdroppers to leave, and then continue reading. The following is for your eyes only.
Are they gone?
Good.
Here it is: everyone in the universe is under the authority of someone. The “someone” on earth will necessarily be either God or man. The American founders clearly contemplated a society imbued with a moral order originating in a belief in God. The Founding Fathers knew that a well-functioning society was one that worked according to the rule of law, and the rule of law stemmed from a transcendent Rule of Law from a transcendent Lawgiver.
Don’t believe me?
Good. The more who don’t believe me, the better for my kingdom.
But consider this, my servants. What will control men if not the conscience of a heart under the authority of a transcendent God?
Yes, other men.
Did you ever wonder why third world banana republics have so many strongmen around? Conscripted kids with automatic weapons casually strolling city streets? Highly visible police forces intruding on every civil liberty?
Have you noticed the steadily increasing use of strongmen to police American society?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
All this because it is the Rule of Law that suffers when men reject the ultimate authority of God and trade it for the more attractive authority of man. No longer does each person in society subject himself or herself to an objective set of rules; each person feels free to do what is good in his or her sight, unless constrained by the hand of a stronger man.
The rejection of the Rule of Law in America is illustrated in the other story today–Michael Barone’s piece in the Washington Examiner entitled, “Obama skirts rule of law to reward pals, punish foes.”
You see, President Obama’s actions and policies represent a pinnacle of centuries of my labor in America to mold societal thinking into a secular society. America has become a nation looking to government as provider and protector, a role that used to be held by God. Government is nothing more than Mangod; Americans have effectively subjected themselves to the ultimate authority of Men, which is to say without overstatement, to me.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Mr. Barone illustrates America’s new authority by taking the example of Obamacare: everyone wants to get out of the requirements of Obamacare. But coincidently only a select few do: those who were Obamacare’s biggest political supporters. Barone notes, for example:
Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.
This is only one example of many; I suggest you read the entire article. But aside from the specifics, Mr. Barone very insightfully realizes:
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says “No Parking,” you’re not supposed to park there even if you’re a pal of the alderman.
But of the Obama administration, after noting many other examples of Obama’s rule of man, Mr. Barone notes:
Punishing enemies and rewarding friends — politics Chicago style — seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS’ gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.
Do you see what is happening, my servants? Americans have traded the Rule of Law for the Rule of Man, and the Rule of Man rules as men do: impetuously, arbitrarily, selfishly, and unfairly. Mr. Barone concludes:
They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government. One thing they don’t look like is the rule of law.
No, they don’t.
Because they can’t. The Rule of Law necessitates the Lawgiver. And the Lawgiver is not only not welcome in America, he is illegal.
When one separates “church and state” one necessarily ends up with “secularism and state,” and secularism is a religion having no objective, transcendent anchor for the rule of law.
Enjoy, America, the Rule of Mangod.
Because it’s all you have when you reject the God man.
Whew!
Finally, my servants. At 12:00 noon London time today the last minutes of Easter passed midnight in Alofi in the country of Niue. Easter gone for another year, and not a second too soon. Have you ever noticed how time passes slowly when you are not having fun?
Who can have fun on a day like Easter? On top of all the talk of my eternal defeat, Pope Benedict XVI has to go all Biblical on Easter and say “humanity isn’t a random product of evolution.” More on this later, my servants (stay tuned). 
But for now I’m going to have to call a Level 3 devilbloggger Alert; this could severely hurt my kingdom. I have been passing off my atheistic creation story for so long I assumed everyone believed it, even the Pope. More people have shuffled into my kingdom due to the evolution lie than almost any other. As I said, my servants, stay tuned for instructions.
But I wish to report a bright spot in my Easter, my servants. Did you read Keith Koffler’s White House Dossier blog today my friends? You will love it. In a blog post entitled “What? No Easter Greeting?” Mr. Koffler notes that (surprise, surprise) US President Obama “failed to issue either an Easter or a Good Friday greeting to the nation.”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
“The nation” of course, is the United States of America, for which Easter has always been a major holiday. Almost all Americans observe Easter in some meaningful way, and all true Americans at least honor Easter for its place in American culture.
All true Americans.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Yes, my servants, this really perked me up. My man, O. He’s is the un-American American, the gift that keeps on taking. You may think I’m making my Obama out to be more than he really is in my kingdom, but consider this, from Fox News via Mr. Koffler:
By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
Not convincing enough of President Obama’s true beliefs? Consider this from the same source:
The White House . . . did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day.
So what happened to one of the biggest American holidays of the year?
Oversight you say? Mistake you say?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
You are so cute when you are naïve.
No, my servants. Read carefully and I’ll impart to you some kingdom knowledge.
I know Obama because I am Liberal One.
Obama thinks he is Liberal One, but he’s not. Truth be told, he’s not even in the top 10. But he’s useful to my kingdom precisely because of his ego and his religious beliefs. He is a Political Christian, otherwise known as a tare, or, in some instances as a goat.
A Political Christian is one who professes a Christian belief (Obama’s press secretary assured us once again this week that he is “a devoted Christian”), but who acts like an unbeliever.
A Political Christian tailors God’s beliefs to his own liking, such as taking God’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill” to apply to all but defenseless babies, even those who survive abortion attempts.
A Political Christian appears awkward and uncomfortable, even embarrassed talking about true faith and morals in public, and may even seek to cover up bothersome symbols, like crosses.
A Political Christian uses the words of Christian faith, but they come out stilted, hollow, shallow, to those of true Christian faith.
A Political Christian has no clearly authentic faith community, such as a Church of which he is a part.
A Political Christian forgets important details like using the word “creator” when citing the Declaration of Independence or mis-stating his own nation’s motto (In God We Trust) when speaking to muslims.
A Political Christian is a Christian in word only.
A Political Christian harms the Kingdom of God because he is not even an infidel, who is one without faith, one without any religious beliefs.
Political Christians are accepted by the naïve, tolerated by infidels, unquestioned by the political class, and thoroughly destructive to the Kingdom of God.
I love Political Christians.
Hey, this is something God and I have in common! Why, then, is he so sad?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Is US President Barack Obama a Christian?
You asked Satan. In fact, everyone wants to know. Two news articles recently raised the question, and, in fact, answered it. First was an AP article entitled, “Obama makes rare trip to church while in Hawaii,” and, second, a Politics Daily article entitled, “Obama Tries to Reassert His Christian Bona Fides, With Words and Deeds.”
Hmmmm. . .
Question: If you have to wonder if someone is a Christian, guess what is the likely answer?
Ha ha ha ha ha. And you are probably right!
But since you asked, here is my short answer: I don’t know (for sure).
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Unlike God (Blechhh!) I am not omniscient. I don’t know everything, and I cannot see into people’s hearts and minds and determine the state of their spiritual health. In this respect I am no different than you; I can only infer from what I see and hear.
Of course, I have much more experience judging inner conviction by outward evidence, so here is my longer answer:
For the most part I judge a man’s heart the same way God does and you should: by the fruit of his life on earth.
But I have been known to be wrong. On more than one occasion someone I felt sure I would welcome through the gates of Hell went the other way, never to be seen by me again. But more often than not I see those who appear to be religious on earth, going through all the right motions and acting the saint, only to find them come tumbling into my eternal domain, moaning and groaning and acting surprised.
Often I hear the earthly self-righteous screaming pitifully: “But Jesus, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” It seems there are many fools who do not believe in God, and many fooled who do!
Of course, I have helped make both the fools and the fooled.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
I have spread many lies on earth about how to get to heaven. I have spread the lie that one need not be a Christian at all; there are many paths to God as long as one is good and believes in love. I have spread the lie that one “need not go to church” to be a good Christian. I have spread the lie that going to church makes one a good Christian. I have spread the lie that good works alone will get one to heaven, and calling oneself a Christian is a mere label and nothing else. I have spread the lie that belief systems that deny the deity of Christ are Christian.
Lies, lies, lies. Ha ha ha ha ha. And so many believe my lies and believe themselves to be Christians.
But the biggest lie of all is that man can make God in his own image, so that becoming a “Christian” is an exercise in semantics, where one’s self-identification as a Christian is deemed sufficient for the actual fact of being a Christian, and God otherwise is molded to be what man wishes him to be.
In fact, a Christian is a very unique being on earth. A Christian is one who has been reborn spiritually, becoming alive and free, having escaped by God’s grace from my death, sin, and destruction. That is why I hate Christians. They have experienced a supernatural work of God in their hearts, a work that I am powerless to stop and which bears fruit in one’s actions that I am equally at pains to stop.
One can fake the actions, but one can’t fake the rebirth.
Sometimes the fakers fool even me. So that is why I hesitate to declare definitively on Obama’s Christianity. But let me tell you what it looks like from my view.
I have many hundreds of years watching human beings, and watching Christians. I almost always know a true Christian. A true Christian has a humble dependence on God that is expressed unambiguously in word and deed, in public and in private. A true Christian has experienced a life-changing encounter with a living God that results in the Christian’s trading slavery to sin for slavery to righteousness; that is, a true Christian seeks to live every moment of every day in regenerated righteous obedience to God as revealed in his word, the Bible.
A true Christian is not one who merely self-identifies as one. An unregenerate self-identifier is merely a lying sinner.
A true Christian seeks to destroy my kingdom. And his words and actions make his intentions clear. I oppose true Christians at every turn, seeking to thwart their every effort at advancing God’s kingdom on earth.
Now, answer me this: would a true Christian cover up Christian symbols while speaking at a Christian university? Obama did.
Would a true Christian vote unambiguously and without apology for laws that make killing an innocent human being legal? Obama did. More than once.
Would a true Christian refer to people in communities as bitter, and as clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”? Obama did.
Would a true Christian support the homosexual political agenda, in clear opposition to Biblical Christianity? Obama does.
Would a true Christian support same-sex marriage, for example by using tax dollars to fund same-sex lifestyles? Obama did.
Would a true Christian “forget” to include the reference to a “creator” when quoting his nation’s founding document’s most famous line? Obama does. Repeatedly.
Would a true Christian “forget” his nation’s own motto of “In God We Trust” and quote a different motto instead in a major speech to Muslims? Obama did.
I could go on forever (literally!).
But think for yourself, my servants. You can see the same behavior I see. What you may lack is a clear understanding of what a Christian is.
But if you rationally juxtapose what a true Christian looks like with what Obama looks like, there is only one reasonable answer to the question “Is Obama a Christian.”
From my viewpoint, the answer is clearly no. And I back my words up with actions; I rarely find myself needing to oppose a speech, a vote, a policy, or any other action of President Obama’s.
But I have been known to be wrong.
American Democrats have religion too!
Why don’t religious people flock to the Democrat Party in the United States? This question seems to befuddle American political operatives, to the point where they silly themselves all over the internet. The latest spill of DemoSillyThink comes from the pages of The New Republic, in a piece by Tiffany Stanley entitled, “Things fall apart, how the Democrats gave up on religious voters.”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Now, my servants, I did not use the term “Democrat;” that is Stanley’s. I prefer to look at the world through more general categories of (1) those who take God and his word seriously; and, (2) those who don’t. In Hell we refer to these as (1) those we hate; and, (2) those we love, respectively.
Of course, it is true, as Tiffany sees but does not understand, that Democrats in the United States almost to a person please me by choosing to populate my Category 2.
And Tiffany’s article is subtitled “How the Democrats gave up on religious voters”?
Ha ha ha ha ha .
Try “How religious voters saw right through godless Democrat religotalk.”
Tiffany details the history of the Democrat’s exercises in ”faith outreach” to reach “religious people.” Barack Obama, of course, was the “shining hope for the religious left,” one who was not afraid of the “language of faith,” and “a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics.”
News bulletin to all the Tiffany’s of the world. The “religious left” was, and is, already speaking their “language of faith” loud and clear, it’s just a different faith. You only confuse people when you try to “give the impression” of genuine religiosity to those I hate in Category 1.
You see, they see you. They see your words in action, as Rush Limbaugh observes today. It’s hard to improve on Rush, but I’ll try: We see you delighting in snubbing Christmas at every chance, and apologizing at every other. We see you promoting the killing of babies, both born and unborn. We see you trying to gut the military, marriages, and churches, turning them over to a homosexual political agenda. We see you openly supporting a mosque at Ground Zero. We see you trying to get rid of organizations rooted in God, like the Boy Scouts. We see religious people mocked by your “shining hope” as religious clingers. And at every turn we see you trying to replace God with government, which is to say, you.
Not true! We believe in God! We believe in God!
Blah blah blah.
So do I!
Tiffany even quotes sociologist Rebecca Sager, who with no understanding whatsoever blurts:
“Ninety percent of people believe in some sort of God. It’s mind-boggling why you would cede those voters to the Republican Party.”
Tiffany, Rebecca, listen: Category 2 is full of believers in God (mostly the ”some sort” kind). Stated belief in God is not the basis for my categories, and it’s not the way the American public categorizes.
And that’s why the American Left will never win with American religious people. Because in the land of the free and the home of the brave a huge majority still takes God and his word seriously, putting them squarely in Category 1.
I know, my servants, I know. I am trying to change that as fast as I can. But having Democrats like Barack Obama go around pretending like they are Christians does not help. Like using a light to hide darkness, “giving the impression of faith” only highlights the liberal’s true faith.
My advice to liberals: Stop acting like Christians that you are not. Both your base and your opponents resent such duplicity. Your best bet, and I have centuries of experience in this area, is to stop the platitudes and cop the attitudes of your true self: a self that desires to make God in its own image, and lord it over others to make them in your likeness.
Remember, I am Liberal One.
Admit it. Live it.
U.S. President Obama, I proudly salute your pride.
Oh, my servants, never have I had such pleasure in watching an American head of state so elegantly slight God at every opportunity. From covering up prominent Christian symbols to “forgetting” to correctly quote the U.S. Declaration of Independence’s “Creator” language, my friend Obama is the gift that keeps on taking.
What has my buddy Obama done now? According to a Washington Times Inside Politics blog entry titled, “Obama muffed U.S. motto,” today members of Congress called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly labeled E pluribus unum the U.S.’s motto in a speech [to muslims] last month, rather than “In God We Trust.”
Accident?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
The President of the United States doesn’t even know his own nation’s motto? Now isn’t that convenient for a man of my times!
The congressmen also noticed Obama’s propensity to “forget” important God-honoring aspects of American heritage. They stated:
“By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society,”
Misrepresenting? Casting aside society? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is for sure: Obama, like me, is extremely uncomfortable with the Christian God. And I like that.
Obama is either ignorant, or purposely dissing The Other One. Either way, my purposes are served, and my will is done on earth. And with this president the reason for Godsnubbing is abundantly clear. Whether prominently covering up offensive Christian symbols at a Christian university, or conveniently failing to correctly quote “Creator” in the language of his own country’s Declaration of Independence, or temporarily “forgetting” his nation’s motto, Obama makes it clear that he is very uncomfortable with the idea of the Christian God. His discomfort manifests itself in his reluctant, awkward, unnatural manner of acting “religious,” when he feels he must in this land of backward “bitter clingers.”
Now, my servants, let me impart some comforting kingdom knowledge. I know Obama because I know men. I know men’s propensity to forget God. And I know men’s natural tendency to elevate self in a prideful display of passively resentful God-hating. I’ve watched this man Obama over the years come from a background rife with a distorted worldview, perfectly positioned for success in my kingdom. I’ve watched patiently with measured expectation of greatness, some apprehension of premature failure, but ultimately with limitless pride in my ability to blind men to their natural limits, and the source of their very gifts. For years I have groomed many people like him who exhibit great trust in Men and Government, and who have the power to change the very worldview of the people he sees as less enlightened.
Finally, I reached the time when I had enough voters of the proper worldview, and, more importantly, My Man, the One who with great pride and confidence in his raw human ability could gracelessly smother any remaining national trust in any mythical Creator, deflect any God-recognition from the minds of wishful thinkers, and subtly demand transfer of all allegiance and worship to This Man and his government of men instead.
Obama, you are My Man today. I just hope that my blinded voters do not experience an enlightenment of a different reality. One glimpse of a God-oriented worldview could cause all my hard work to crumble like a house of Jokers, leaving me to start from scratch.
And I would not like that.
So Obama, I warn you: if you start acting in a genuinely God-honoring way, in a manner that clearly comes from a core belief in the Christian God, I will not forget.
But why be silly? That’s not in the cards.
Is it?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
One, two, three, four, . . .
I’m counting to ten. I might have to count to ten thousand.
What is it this time, you ask? I’ll tell you. I’ve mentioned to you before that Sarah Palin worries me. In fact, she burns me up.
This time she’s criticizing President Obama for his stance on abortion. In an AP article today entitled, “Palin calls Obama ‘most pro-abortion president’, Palin is quoted as saying that Obama is ”the most pro-abortion president to occupy the White House.” She said a lot of other things as well, but she needs to lay off this abortion issue.
five, six, seven, . . .
I know, my servants, I know. Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. No-one can deny that. But that’s exactly why Palin’s big mouth and screechy voice is getting me steamed.
eight, nine, . . .
Hey, Sarah, maybe you didn’t know this but abortion is LEGAL!! So what if Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. In the United States it’s a Constitutional right. It’s like accusing Obama of being the most pro-free speech president ever. Well, maybe not that one, but so what anyway?
Hey, Sarah, if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one! Ha ha ha ha ha. (I didn’t make that up, but I wish I did.) Hey Sarah, if you don’t like killing people, don’t kill people! Ha ha ha ha ha.
This is what happens when you let non-Constitutional scholars opine on well-settled legal rights. 
The Constitution is hard to understand, and it was written, like, thousands of years ago or something. That was then, this is now; we must rely on educated legal minds of Constitutional scholars to divine the right to mock the divine.
And Obama, that dude’s a Constitutional scholar. He was even a Constitutional Law professor, well, at least a senior lecturer. For a class or two. But regardless, he knows the Constitution and can find a penumbra, under which is found the Founding Father’s intended protection to kill babies, including those partially born, according to Professor Obama. Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live.
But back to Sarah–let me tell you how to think about this, my servants. Do not fall for Sarah Palin’s trap. This is very important, so listen up.
On the issue of abortion, or any other of my culture-destroying initiatives, you must resist the impulse to defend or make excuses. When you do you are immediately acknowledging that there is something wrong with abortion, something that must be defended over and above its legal status.
For example, don’t say, “No, Sarah, Obama is not the most pro-abortion president ever,” as if there is something wrong with his being so. Don’t say that! Acknowledge it proudly. Yes, yes, he IS! Don’t you love it!
And stop going around saying stupid things like, “I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”
Huh? Why rare? Do you think free speech should be rare? Do you think that a right to trial by jury should be rare? Do you think that any of the other clear Constitutional rights should be rare?
Do you get it? By defending or excusing Obama or anyone else on abortion you are making a tacit admission that there is something wrong with abortion. Why make excuses if there is nothing illegal about abortion? Legally right equals morally right, right? Dred Sco–I mean Great Scott, RIGHT!
Do you make excuses for Mother Teresa? Do you make excuses for feeding the hungry? For helping the poor? For sheltering the homeless?
Then why do you make excuses for abortion? Legal and safe is enough. Approach abortion with pride and gusto!
Now, this is serious, my servants. How we react on issues like abortion says more than how we act does. Whenever you react defensively, apologetically, or reluctantly, you admit there is more than a constitutional law at issue; there is also a moral law written on your heart. And you must ignore that moral law.
Oh, if only it were so easy.
One, two, three, four . . .
NOTE: It’s less than one week until the BIG election in the United States. My voter issue guide will publish October 31. Trick or treat, you decide.
Is it hot down here? Or is it just me? I mean, it’s like one of my sweatshops down here; we in Hell have been working overtime to ensure that certain candidates win in the upcoming elections in the United States. My will on earth can be accomplished best where my servants rule most. And this election we’ve had to work triple overtime; it’s been a long time since so many of my faithful have been underdogs.
Listen, my servants, you must realize that every time two candidates are running for office one of them will always be my pick. He or she may not be perfect, and he or she usually leaves a lot for me to desire, but one candidate will always be more prone to think thoughts I like, more likely to do deeds I love, more willing to push legislation that furthers my purposes, and more open to generally doing my will on earth as it is in Hell.
Look for clues, like that witch O’Donnell, who credits prayer for boosting her campaign. It’s hard even for me to tell sometimes, but I’m pretty sure she is not who I would vote for. She doesn’t even believe that the words “separation of church and state” are written in the US Constitution’s First Amendment. What a loser. And I did get her to back down on her stand on creation by stating for the record “what I believe is irrelevant.” (Psst. . . she doesn’t believe evolution explains your existence). But, as I show below, what one believes about the creator is relevant; very much so.
So inform yourself, and be sure to vote for my candidates. I’ve come way too far in the United States to start losing ground now. Make sure that there is plenty of separation between church and state (at least the bad, God-believing kind of church; Satan-approved churches are OK).
About this creator business, and how it relates to US politics. Do you know how long it took me to find anyone who would admit to believing that rights derive from the state, and not from a creator? And do I not deserve some credit for finding not just anyone, but a president, who believes this? In the United States of America?
Whoa! I’m good.
Over the years I’ve carefully groomed a generation of students to be statists–those who believe sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.
And the pinnacle of my achievement to date, more than I could ever ask or think, is the statist of statists, Barack Obama. A man after my own heart; he can’t even bring himself to say the word “creator” unless it is conspicuously politically expedient.
Obama is Modern America. Modern America, thanks to me, has forgotten the creator and looks to government to endow rights, in a slowly unfolding declaration of dependence. And with no thought about a creator, there can be no thought in Modern America about the unalienable rights that form an integral component of independence, as in the Declaration of Independence. No creator = no unalienable rights.
Do any Americans even know what an unalienable right is?
Well, I declare! Ha ha ha ha ha. I’m good. I am GOOD!
ABC’s The Note is reporting something that really disturbs me. Please bear with me a moment while I get my wits about me.
OK. Let me explain.
Abortion. That treasured Constitutionally enshrined (in the United States) freedom and right of almost every woman (at least every woman able to defend herself), is once again under attack.
And this time it’s literally gruesome. Now, ordinarily I like gruesome. And I love lying, killing and destroying, and abortion is a three-in-one for me. But I like gruesome on my terms, when it’s effectively hidden by euphemisms and confounded by legal jargon. I don’t like gruesomeness used against me, and that’s what is happening now.
And I want it stopped.
It seems some do-gooder candidate for Congress from Washington DC, named Missy Smith doesn’t like abortion. Hey, Missy! Join the losing crowd. It doesn’t matter what you like–it’s the law! Ha ha ha ha ha. I love saying that: It’s the LAW! It’s in the Constitution! Ha ha ha ha ha.
But just because abortion is chiseled into the Constitution, and it’s legal in every state, and it’s taught in every public school, and it’s every woman’s right (as well as her sorry partner’s), and it’s (almost) every woman’s choice, and state officials eagerly ensure little girls can do it without their mother’s knowledge, doesn’t mean you can show it on TV!
What if we went around graphically showing the illegal kind of murder, complete with pictures of deliberate dismemberment and the bloody aftermath. Huh, Missy?
But that’s what Missy’s doing (I mean the legal kind). You can see her ads yourself by going to her website. Tell me they aren’t disgusting, and that she’s crossed the politically correct line by ignoring debate about “choice” and showing the raw truth about abortion. Tell me, please. I’m about to lose it here.
For years I’ve been able to convince people that abortion was merely a “procedure.” And the political issue was about “choice”. I’ve convinced people that women big enough to say so could shout “hands off my body!” And women too small to say so? Well, believe it or not, I convinced an entire planet of people that they don’t count. They are either an “inconvenience,” an “intruder,” a “lifeless blob,” maybe a “product of conception,” and perhaps even a “potential human being.” And as long as no one could see the lifeless blob’s eyes, or hold the intruder’s hand, or see the potential human being’s very potential severed limbs (placed back in close proximity on a table to resemble the original “thing” to make sure the doctor “got it all”), these euphemisms enabled easy “choices.”
But, here’s the dirty truth that I’ve been able to suppress for 40 years in the United States. It’s grisly whether you see it or not. But as long as you can’t see it, you don’t know it. Out of sight, out of mind, as I like to say.
Missy is trying to expose that truth, and in the worst way. She says she had two abortions but has turned against the practice. She continues:
“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years,” she says. “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”
Well, cry me a river. Just because you are angry, and just because Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Norton all support doing my will on earth, is no reason for you to impose your unconstitutional beliefs on others. And you have absolutely no business interfering with my business by putting up those vile videos of legal, safe, abortions.
So, my servants, whatever you do, don’t watch her videos. I can’t stop Missy from posting them, but I can ask you to not watch them. They are so bad even YouTube yanked them as being too “grisly.” And, while you are at it, don’t watch this.
But mostly, my servants, please ensure that Missy Smith does not get elected. Her kind are bad news for me and my kingdom. Do not give to her campaign. For sure do not vote for her. And make sure that she and all others who oppose my will with respect to legal, Constitutional “termination” of an unwanted “it” in a woman of choice do not get into power.
My will be done on earth as it is in Hell.
