Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Obama, Guns, and Conscience

by David Yeagley · January 14, 2013 · 7 Comments ·

Barry Soetoro (a.k.a.) “Barak Hussein Obama,” who has made every effort to hide all records of his true identity and performance (at colossal expense?), who has well-earned the public reputation of being self-contradictory, anti-Constitutional, and prevaricative, has adjured those who oppose his idea of gun control to “examine their own conscience.”

As though he knows what a conscience is?

One who is apparently without moral compass, commands his opponents to be moral?

This is called the epitome of moral relativism. This easily adjustable standard is tantamount to no morality. This is assigning peremptory authority to your own opinion, as though it were the moral standard, no matter what the issue, and no matter what you have publicly said about it before. It all depends on the changing circumstance. It is all “relative” to your situation. (For instance, in 2009 Obama backed the Fast & Furious program to put guns in the hands of Mexican criminals–resulting in the death of hundreds of Mexicans and an American border patrol officer, but campaigning in 2008 he suggested that, for gun control, “We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets,” as if that would curb crime.)

Morality in American society has become a sport. It is a game that obsesses us. The drama of right or wrong is the stuff of great movies, TV shows, and still the substance of great sermons. But, with the incessant aggrandizement of morality in politics, while at the same time completely discounting its significance by constant, blatant transgression, the collective conscious of American society is left benumbed to its own language. Any personal moral challenge is dealt with as though it were an act in a drama.

The drama afforded by morality is, besides the woman’s body, the most marketable item up for sale. (Indeed, morality and the feminine are closely related.) Politicians win on not only their superiority of communication, but on the superior morality they communicate. Who’s right? His opponent must be wrong.

As Rush Limbaugh said today, Obama has no solutions to offer. He has only the skill of condemning and eliminating opponents. This is all done by words. “Spin,” it’s sometimes called. If Obama can appear to wield the moral imperatives, then he wins. The Republicans are wrong, and therefore bad. Or, bad, and therefore wrong.

Twenty children were murdered in Sandy Hook (Newtown), Connecticut. Three hundred and thirty thousand children are aborted every year in the United States. [UPDATE: Previous figure pertains to Planned Parenthood. The total figure in the United States is 1.2 million abortions per year (2008).] Which fact carries the stronger moral imperative? Why doesn’t the president ask advocates of infanticide to “examine their conscience”? Because those advocates can all vote. Those not yet born have no voice..

Doctors or practitioners who perform abortions may not be mentally ill, like the crazed shooters; but they kill a lot more human lives. They certainly must be morally ill.

Violence against someone’s will is criminal. But who’s to say the unborn child has no will? Would he choose to be eliminated, if he did? No one wants to be shot, once he’s alive. But, it does not follow that, not yet born, a person would agree to being squashed, or ripped apart.

We would hope and pray that Barry has a conscious. His fellow tribesman O. J. Simpson failed to show evidence of one. John Edwards failed similarly.

But the American public, so crazed by entertainment, finds such public fraud no more than curious and interesting, and, yes, fascinating. The competitive market for outrage is about maxed out. Variety is all that’s left to appeal. Some new angle, new level, some new depth of outrage is all that awaits us.

This is why the Democrats get by with it. The public seems benumbed and eagerly curious to see how far the Democrats will go, how low Obama will sink. It’s entertainment, just like a TV show. It is hypnotic. It is a continuum of catastrophe with highly paid actors, paid by the American ticket-buyers–the tax payers.

Can we snap out of it?

Posted by David Yeagley · January 14, 2013 · 5:28 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Communism · Conservatism · Guns · Liberalism · Media · Politics

Read More Journal Posts »

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Laz // Jan 14, 2013 at 6:33 pm   

    I don’t look at “tribes” in the same way you do. OJ Simpson and BO belong to entirely different racial and social paradigms. They are not from the same tribe. One is black, one is mulatto. One was raised in a white household by a PhD-holder. So how are they from the same tribe. Where you see the same person, I see night and day

    Obama is faking sympathy for the dead school children to accomplish gun control. I’m not going to disagree on that end

  • 2 David Yeagley // Jan 14, 2013 at 7:07 pm   

    Laz, I only used what all black people here in America use, and what Obama has capitalized on. He’s not even American black, according to his story about his Kenyan father, anyway. But, in America, it’s all marketed as one thing–black, or Negro. THEY certainly don’t distinguish. Why should I? In fact, I denounced the whole idea that he had any connection or involvement with American blacks at all! I remember pointing out what a farce that was.

    But, no one cared. Sharpton made comments, when Barry was running for president the first time. But, when Barry won, all the blacks claimed him as black, regardless.

    Believe me, I saw (and still see) night and day. But, this distinction isn’t permitted at large. Obama is black, not even mulatto. (Now Mariah Carey more than mulatto, but she’s still considered black.)

    I’m just goin’ with the flow, bro. I actually quite agree with you. So, what do we do about Obama’s non-American blackness?

    Maybe he really is the son of Frank Marshall Davis. That would make him American black…but it still wouldn’t change his personal experience, and the lack of any direct community association with black people–of any nationality.

  • 3 Laz // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33 pm   

    My problem with blacks claiming him goes back to what you mentioned- he does not have the American black ancestry. It’s Kenyan. Moreover, going to a private school in Hawaii and being raised by a single white mother isn;t exctly a “black” experience.

    He of course is black in America, by self-identity. He did this to garner more votes from black Americans. It was a tactic. Calculated.

    Don’t take offense to my post; I agreed with the article. But I envision a future where we see things as they are; A mixed race man is nothing more than that. No more claiming a status for political and social gain. It happens all too often. There should exist a gray area, in my mind

    But forget this minor pet peeve of mine. There are larger issues afoot

  • 4 Bonus Gift // Jan 15, 2013 at 2:31 am   

    Humans do not do well when confronted by their own shortcomings, and the larger the shortcoming and the more morally depraved the person often the worse the situation, and the more likely the immoral project their shortcomings and thoughts onto others. The psychological term is projection; and communists/socialists/cultural Marxists almost must have it or they would, well, go completely nuts and possibly shoot someone (or if upon becoming dictator kill millions).

    “Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.”

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2013 at 9:00 am   

    Along with John Edwards, I should had Bill and Hillary Clinton, Lance Armstrong, and a host others. Profound levels of fraud, dishonesty, and lying. These people seem to need the public, the media–to help hide their fraud. They couldn’t hide so effectively if left to normal relations.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2013 at 9:14 am   

    In fact, there was a psycho-bio of Clinton by John Gartner, In Search of Bill Clinton (2009), but the first to really put Clinton on the couch was a female psychiatrist. She was interviewed in media. It was novel. Others were psychoanalyzing him in 1998.

    Clinton was considered pathological. Obama is “demonic,” as Ann Coulter might say.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Jan 15, 2013 at 9:25 am   

    Here are two books that show what an incredible crook and fraud Clinton was:

    Gary Aldrich, Unlimited Access (1998)

    Timperlake & Triplett, Year of the Rat (1998)

    Clearly Clinton’s legacy was corruption, so that the ultimate traitor, the unnamed son of blackness easily found access to the corrupt power of the White House.

You must log in to post a comment.