I am absolutely perplexed with Americas obsession with the liberal left and their propaganda! I was also thinking, as I was driving, that Dems are afraid of Sarah Palin! She may not be the intellectual that the left craves, but she represents the simple, down to earth citizens of this nation! This is the scariest of times for the USA or should I say USSA, Comrades!

God bless<


Hard to Believe

I recently became a father of twins, so that now makes three children. In becoming a Daddy I now pay more attention to parenting.

While doing some studying and reading this evening my wife and I stumbled upon this show on TLC. It’s called “Outrageous Kids Parties,” I have never been so appalled in my life as I am now.

First, let me say that I consider my family to be blessed to live within a country where we can enjoy our family and our children, but I find it ridiculous that we let our children rule our households. If you haven’t watched this program, I would suggest you do so.

This just proves to me that we, as parents, have instilled a mindset of greed within our children. It doesn’t help that they have already been so inundated with consumerism that they can’t see straight.

I suggest one thing, let’s teach our children the value of God, family, and a strong work ethic not this giveme giveme mentality. The scripture teaches us that if we should train up a child in the way they should go in the end they shall not depart from it. Let’s teach these new generation of leaders the correct things in life


It seems as though the mornings are the best time for me to reflect. Even though there is a screaming baby and I am still half asleep I can still find myself reflecting on the Scriptures!

I was reading in Psalm 40 and verse 10-11 really blindsided me. It says ” I have not concealed Your righteousness within my heart; I have proclaimed Your faithfulness and Your salvation. I have not hid away Your steadfast love and Your truth from the great assembly.” This made me reflect back to when I was a new Christian and I was so zealous to reach out and share my faith and joy with others. Sure, I may have cast my pearls before swine, but I was bold and told those about His great love. As I began to reflect on more recent dates I find myself less zealous, but more willing to build a relationship with those that I want to reach.

I had to step back and repent, as well! I had to repent of not seeing people with the Father’s eyes, and not reaching out to those that are not on their way down the narrow path!

I believe it is time for us Christians to stop hiding Christ and keeping Him to ourselves. It’s time to repent and turn from this and start reaching out. Amen!

Controlling the message

Nine months into the Obama Administration, the White House communications strategy is coming into clear focus. Demonize, harass and ultimately aim to silence opposition, while endlessly repeating the administration line, with the full cooperation of the old media. Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, along with Senior White Advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff lead the attack. Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel continues to pile on.

This administration has seemingly adopted the Joseph Goebbels’ (the infamous Nazi Minister of Propaganda under Adolph Hitler) strategy that history has labeled ‘the big lie.’ Hitler was a master of manipulating large numbers of people. He intuitively understood that if you simply tell a lie, people who know (or find out) the truth will easily reject it. But if you tell a huge, enormous lie that is blatantly false, and repeat it over and over, people eventually will question their own ability to properly process the information, and they will come to believe it. In fact, as the lie continues to be repeated and reinforced they will believe it with great force — even when subsequently confronted with indisputable facts to the contrary.

Vice President Biden has been quoted repeatedly over the past several weeks proclaiming “the stimulus is working” when only a fraction of the $750 billion appropriation has been spent and most of that went to plugging state budget gaps. Mr. Obama himself pleaded to the Congress to pass the stimulus legislation otherwise “unemployment could rise to more than 8%.” Unemployment has broken through 8% and reached 9.8% as of September 30th of this year. The point here is control of the message. The administration says the stimulus is working and does not seek any opposition speech – factual or not.

In his radio address this past weekend, Mr. Obama claimed that “there is growing consensus for health care reform.” The fact is that more than 53% of all Americans (from several most recent national polls on the question) oppose health care reform as currently proposed. The point here is control of the message. The administration says that there is growing consensus for health care reform and does not seek any opposition speech — factual or not.

We recently were shown doctors gathered for a photo session with Mr. Obama in the Rose Garden of the White House. To make sure we all knew they were doctors; they wore white lab coats – some provided by the White House. The purpose of the image session was to tell the American people that doctors support the current healthcare reform measures. What was not told, until uncovered by the new media and reported on Fox News, was that the doctors in the Rose Garden were supporters of Mr. Obama and that some were part of an organized group that actually worked for his election? Again, the point here is control of the message and total disregard of the facts.

Climate change (let’s not call it global warming anymore because science is beginning to challenge the basic premise) is the force behind the recently passed cap and trade legislation by the House of Representatives and waiting debate in the Senate. It has been presented as an issue that requires dramatic changes of our economy and our way of life in order to save the planet. The amount of wealth that will be subject to transfer is staggering with whole industries and millions of jobs in jeopardy, but where is the public debate – not a word. With all of the money and concentration of power that is at stake, the message needs to be controlled regardless of the facts and regardless of the potential disastrous effects on the American people and the American economy.

Over the past 50 years many of us simply did what we thought was proper. We went to school, studied hard, became employed and worked diligently. We raised families. We voted every Election Day. We were free and busy living the American dream. Unfortunately, freedom has never been a spectator sport. It has always required deliberate action and sacrifice. Freedom certainly is not free and – if I may use one more cliché – freedom is always only one generation away from extinction, perhaps only one election from extinction.

American blood has been spilled on our soil, in Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East so that we could speak freely in opposition; and so that we could face any issue with facts and not lies.

While we were busy enjoying the fruits of freedom, 58,000 names were added to a granite wall in Washington because a few of us answered the call in Vietnam. While we were busy dealing with expanding our net worth, another 5,000 of our brave young people made the ultimate sacrifice because they answered the call after 3,000 Americans and others were murdered on American soil only 8 years ago on September 11, 2001.

All of the American blood that was spilled was done in order for all of us to continue to enjoy the basic guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Among those rights is our freedom of speech; our freedom to speak in opposition to any administration’s agenda; our freedom to be respected for our willingness to assemble and to debate; our freedom to push back organized lies and misstatements with the facts.

We had it easy for 50 years because a few of our brothers and sisters did the heavy lifting for us. If we continue to stay out of the action, we will see our freedom lost. We will not lose it to a foreign enemy; we will lose it to our own apathy.

Freedom to speak in opposition is not a liberal or conservative issue; it is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it is an American issue and we should all be alarmed by what we have seen in only nine months. Disregard of free assemblies; individual and personal attacks on average Americans; and the use of manipulative lies should shake all of us to our core!

We need to reach out to all our elected officials and let them know that are no longer going to remain sidelined by our busy lives and that we will go to the polls and institute real change. We need to make it clear that our elected officials need to be sensitive to only one voice — that of the American people.

So while Anita Dunn and others in the Obama administration are declaring war on Fox News, they should be aware that they are really declaring war against opposition speech and essentially she is declaring war on the American people. Our elected officials need to understand the same. We need to work for truth in debate; to defend opposition speech no matter if it agrees with our positions or not; and we need to stay engaged. The enemies of freedom will not give up — will we?

Alinskyite in Chief Is a Master Polarizer

The thirteenth rule of radical tactics: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
– Saul Alinsky, the Father of Community Organizing

Rules for Radicals; p. 128

There’s a whole lot of polarizing going on in Obama’s America. Unity is out, apparently. Polarization is still in. And Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are the new Bush.

One would need to be a complete ninny outfitted with blinders and earplugs not to know this by now.

One blaring truth rears its ugly head to any open-minded person who takes a hard look at Barack Obama’s personal and political history. His history is shot clear through with polarizing effects, both intentional and unintentional.

One might almost say that Barack Obama was a born polarizer.

Obama’s Polarization Roots

When Barack Obama burst upon the national political stage with his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was selling himself as an ideal-Republic American. Yes, as is typical of all of Obama’s speeches, this one was heavy on the “I.” Nevertheless, the speech heard ‘round the world at that convention was one just about any American anywhere could like.

The most memorable lines and the ones that drew the heaviest applause:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Unfortunately for the Country, these were indeed just words.

As researchers came to learn during the campaign, Barack Obama was raised on the mother’s milk of socialism, not the bedrock American values claimed by the Axelrod-spun, fairytale narrative.

Both Barack’s mother and his father were fellow travelers of the Marxist band and made no bones about this during their lives. Stanley Ann Dunham was spouting the “gospel of envy” by the time she was in her mid-teens. Barack Obama Sr. saw his own political career in Kenya die out, not only due to his alcoholism, but also due to his hard-core communist fealties, which were too stringent for the softer-core socialists in command of the fledgling post-colonial country of his birth. Young Barack’s grandfather, who was his primary caregiver from age 10, made sure the youngster spent vast amounts of his free time with stalwart avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

At their very core, all Marxist theories rest upon polarization, which is the direct result of envy and greed for power. “They have what we want,” is the rallying cry of all socialist/communist/fascist systems. All Marxist creeds are as naturally polarizing as a mob of looters.

Fancy, high-flying words don’t change a thing.

When Barack Obama made his way to Chicago, he was already a natural polarizer, seeing the world through us-vs.-them lenses. His associations with ACORN (Project Vote) and Jeremiah Wright fit perfectly with the worldview his parents, grandfather and mentor purposefully taught him.

His study of Alinsky power tactics during those years merely reinforced that polarizing worldview and gave it stronger legs.

The church chosen by Barack Obama in Chicago was run by Jeremiah Wright, another active and vociferous polarizer. Wright based his own theology on the writings of James H. Cone, a man who boastfully declares that blacks — not Jews — are the chosen people of God, that they’re due special preference because of their history of oppression and that the only way a white person can join them is to shed their “white skins” and become black in their souls. Both Cone and Wright preach black supremacy and black separatism and have bought hook, line and sinker the socialist, “They have what we want,” rallying cry. Barack Obama chose this theology of his own free will as a full-fledged, well-educated adult.

As a young politician in Chicago, Obama was known for sowing division and polarity among his own constituents, first with his underhanded treatment of Alice Palmer, then with his ill-fated challenge of Bobby Rush for the U.S. Congress.

Why would anyone believe that Barack Obama had a single unifying bone in his body? Such a belief defies common sense.

The Master Polarizer as President

President Barack Obama sailed into the presidency itself on the wings of eight years of solid, left-wing manipulated polarizing of all things Bush. So, why did Americans believe Obama would be anything but a polarizing president? David Mendell, writing in his book, From Promise to Power, puts his finger right on the pulse of Obama’s ease with bamboozling all comers.

It’s the smooth-flowing, used-car-salesman rhetoric, honey.

Writing of Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, Mendell noted (p. 248):

“As he had so often before, Obama sold his message to both liberals and centrists, as well as to some who tilted toward the right. His message, after all, was both liberal and conservative. His policy positions were decidedly to the left, but he offered them in such a passive, two-pronged way that it made him sound almost conservative.”

After becoming president, Obama’s first target of Alinsky polarization tactics was Rush Limbaugh. The targeting began very early with Obama’s words to Republican lawmakers over the hastily passed, non-bipartisan Stimulus package. When Republican lawmakers attempted to take the new President at his conciliatory campaign rhetoric and provide actual input, the President’s petulant reply: “I won.” To which he added the polarizing bait: “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get anything done.”

Obama, the general threw down the rhetorical gauntlet and ever since, his troops have followed suit, attempting to polarize Rush Limbaugh (and every one of Rush’s listeners) in the same way Democrats effectively polarized President Bush.

President Obama followed up on his polarizing tactic against Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, laughing uproariously as Wanda Sykes plied her death-wish humor at Rush’s kidneys and ludicrously suggested that Rush was the 20th hijacker on 9/11.

According to the Huffington Post, “The White House’s communications staff announced two weeks ago (referring to Oct 5-9) that it was charting out a new, more aggressive strategy, defined largely by a pledge to push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.” Anita Dunn appeared the following Sunday on CNN to fire the first salvo of this stated policy.

Since then, our Alinskyite in Chief has taken the unprecedented extra step of using the people’s government to perform a rhetorical hit job on an independent media outlet, Fox News. Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, whose favorite philosopher is Mao, the Chinese-Communist butcher, audaciously targeted Fox News on national television. She slandered the channel’s coverage of the presidential campaign, declared it a “wing of the Republican Party,” and openly admitted the reason it was dissed by the President last month was its tenacious insistence on reporting stories unflattering to Obama.

This open polarizing of independent news and opinion broadcasters is not by accident, but by design and rests solidly at the feet of the President. Dunn made it big in the news again this week for her declarations that Obama had controlled the media during the campaign. But this control of the media thing only works if one controls all the media.

The Goals of Alinskyite Polarization: Killing the Opposition

Saul Alinsky declared that the only way to effect any substantial change in the prevailing order of power (Haves vs. Have-nots) was to first polarize the whole societal/political atmosphere.

Alinsky described his community organizer as someone who must become a “well-integrated political schizoid.”

“The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order to slip into becoming a true believer. Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil. He knows there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 78)

When Senate candidate Obama gave that speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and declared, “even as we speak, there are those preparing to divide us,” he was talking out both sides of his mouth.

Being a consummate divider is the community organizer’s very job description. His task is to “rub raw the sores of discontent” until ordinary people become so agitated with the status quo that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to change it. When Alinsky was taunted with the accusation that organizers were nothing but “professional agitators,” he gleefully agreed, declaring that the organizer’s job was to “fan the flames of discontent.” Only hopelessness and overwhelming fear of the future, he contended, that would pave the way for revolution:

Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. – Rules for Radicals, p. xix

That’s precisely where we were in the lead-up to the presidential election. Americans were indeed “rubbed raw” from the left’s ceaseless caterwauling against Bush, the “religious right,” “ideological” policy making, “Bush’s war,” etc. And it has been clear from the beginning of the Obama presidency that he and his supporters believed enacting far-reaching leftist policies would be little more than child’s-play. After all, the President also had overwhelming majorities in Congress to do his bidding.

But things have not gone as easily or as uncritically as hoped. Resistance has formed and it has been widespread and quite resilient against the President’s charms. Rather than re-examine his policy proposals or question himself, President Obama simply goes to the fallback position of every true-blue Alinskyite. He “picks a target, freezes it, personalizes it and polarizes it.”

In the President’s mind, the only reason good Americans disagree with him and his far-reaching, anti-American policies are those media folks who report on his scheming, i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. The other news and opinion outlets have given the Alinskyite a complete pass.

Alinsky taught that the purpose of polarization was not only to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” but also to force the target into committing the “crimes” of which he stood preemptively accused. Alinsky gave examples of how he had polarized and tormented an opponent so forcefully and tenaciously that the target eventually broke and succumbed to things like breaking into his offices to get information and hurling invective that made him look guilty to onlookers. The whole idea of polarization is to push the target into becoming the villain he was targeted to be.

Alinsky summed up his polarization tactic with these tidbits, which should act as warnings to targets of Alinskyite polarization:

* The real action is in the enemy’s reaction.
* The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.

To those who would decry his tactics as unwholesome and at bedrock, untruthful, Alinsky offered this rebuttal:

“Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as, ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’? This becomes political idiocy.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

Even though Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to the one he referred to as the “very first radical known to man,” none other than Lucifer, Alinsky was also quite adroit at claiming he was following injunctions by Jesus Christ, too.

“The classic statement on polarization comes from Christ: ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ (Luke 11:23) He allowed no middle ground to the moneychangers in the Temple. One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

Putting himself on the same level as Christ was an Alinsky favorite and it certainly reminds me of our own Alinskyite in Chief.

President Obama has sown division among religious people too. Among Jews, he has polarized stalwart supporters of Israel and in his foreign policy moves against the tiny State, has relied on backing of anti-Israel Jewish groups, such as J-Street. President Obama has also attempted to polarize the Pope and stirred division among Catholics by speaking at Notre Dame. In religion, as well as politics, President Obama adopts the all-with-me or against-me rhetoric, but unlike God, is willing to use any dirty trick in the book to get his way.

Seems like the actions of a true radical in the Luciferian mold to me.

The bottom line on polarization is that it’s an ugly, deceitful power tactic being used unabashedly by President Barack Obama to further his own designs for America. But targeting the most popular, successful radio and television personalities in America today would seem a bit beyond the pale, even for an Alinskyite in Chief.

President Obama should, perhaps, have heeded Alinsky’s warnings on picking perfect targets:

“It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy…on the part of the designated target. The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely. If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.”

With 15-20 million listeners every week and plenty of financial power, Rush Limbaugh has proven that he is not a soft target. Remember the left’s Congressional-letter fiasco. As the most highly viewed Cable news network, Fox would seem also un-amenable to easy polarizing. Eventually, other news individuals and organizations will most likely enter this president-picked fight on the side of their beleaguered Fox comrades, not to mention the millions of Fox’s angered viewers.

Backlash is forming faster than a thunder cloud on a hot summer day. It’s going to be a fine fight and I’m bidding for the popcorn concession.

Reading the Electoral Tea Leaves

All eyes, for now, are focused on the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Will those races be referenda on Obama and the Democrats? Yes, to some extent they will. If Republican candidates win those two races, that reflects upon the Democratic Party and its national leader. But off the national media radar, there are plenty of other smaller elections — special elections for state legislative seats — which already show serious political problems for the Democrats.

The following list shows: (1) a particular state legislative seat which has held a special election in 2009; for example, the first race listed is the election results for the 89th District of the Maine House of Representatives, (2) the percentage of the vote that the Republican candidate running in that district received in the 2008 general election last November, and (3) the percentage of the vote that the Republican candidate received in a special election this year in the very same state legislative district.


GOP Vote 11/08

GOP Vote 2009 Special Election


Maine House (89)



GOP +33%

New Hampshire Senate (3)



GOP +18%

South. Carolina House (30)



GOP +9%

New Hampshire House (4)



GOP +13%

Pennsylvania House (124)



GOP + 2%

Alabama Senate (7)



GOP +33%

Delaware Senate (19)



GOP +63%

Florida Senate (28)



GOP +15%

Tennessee House (62)



GOP +22%

Oklahoma House (65)



GOP +56%

The data speaks for itself: in the very same legislative districts, Republican candidates have been doing much better in special elections after Obama took office than Republican candidates did in November 2008, when large numbers of black voters and young voters turned out to elect Obama. The big jump for Republican candidates appears in Red states (Oklahoma, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee), in Blue states (Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maine), and in Purple states (Florida and New Hampshire.)

These little elections across the nation confirm what polling data trends have shown: the nation as a whole is moving away from the Democratic Party and toward the Republican Party; the intensity of Republican voters these days is greater than Democrat voters; and these reach across all parts of the nation.

Some of the Republican wins are real eye-openers. Republicans have never had a state representative from Oklahoma’s 65th District and Delaware’s 19th Senate District has been represented by Democrats for a long time. Democrat dominance had been so strong in those two districts that Republicans did not even field candidates in the 2008 general election. The 30th House District in South Carolina had not been represented by a Republican in thirty years. In several of these races, Republicans lost the state legislative race in November 2008 and then captured the seat in a 2009 special election.

The tea leaves from these little races all over the nation should hearten Republicans and trouble Democrats. Other recent elections, like the surprising Republican win in the Albuquerque mayoral race earlier this month, confirm this trend. Democrats tried hard, when polls in Albuquerque showed that a Republican might actually make the runoff election, to bolster the Democrat front runner. These efforts failed. In yet another Purple state, voters in the largest city in the state have moved away from the Democratic Party and embraced the Republican Party.

But on November 3, 2009, both political parties will know quite a bit more about the strength and consistency of these trends toward the Republican Party. While voters in New Jersey and Virginia are choosing their governors, voters in those states will also be electing state legislatures. If Republicans, who only control one of the four legislative chambers in those two states now, make major gains and maybe capture a legislative chamber in Virginia or New Jersey, that is very good news for Republicans. Virginians will also be electing other statewide elected officials, like Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General, Republican victories, and particularly the size of Republican victories, will tell a great deal about whether Virginia is a Red state once more.

But the careful political eye will look at state legislative races on November 3rd in other states. Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Washington will all have special state legislative races on the first Tuesday in November. If Republicans do well in these races, then a general Republican trend will receive powerful new evidence. Republicans, to be sure, will need to stand for something positive and principled. But right now it seems that the average Obama voter in 2008 is, today, apathetic, troubled, and wavering.

Theistic Evolution

A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution. It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary principles to bring man to where he is–maybe with a little help from God here and there. At least this theory includes God. But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed evolution.

For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, “Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us…” (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, “Let there be…” and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks, it occurs. He said “Let there be” and it was so. It does not say, “Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process.”

God said in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” The Hebrew word for “make” in this verse, and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is “asah.” It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.

The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground, but man was made directly by God: “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground–not the water of the ocean.

If evolution is true and the Bible is true, then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam’s ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn’t made from Adam’s side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God.

Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'” The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve.

Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized.


So, I recently downloaded and printed off this free e-book entitled “Pastor Dad.” It has been a very convicting book thus far.

I will qoute you a line that really convicted me. “It is imperative that Christian fathers repent of their childish ways (i.e., laziness, lust, whining, drunkeness, juvenile antics, neglecting family in the pursuit of hobbies, foolish spending, and so on) because their sins impinge upon the lives of their children and grandchildren.”

Wow! I am serious when I say that I am still convicted by that statement.

I encourage all of you fathers out there to read it!

God bless

If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?

This article offers the basic teachings of Karl Marx, so readers may judge themselves whether these might be at work influencing current Administration decisions. In the present chaotic political atmosphere, the phrase “Marxist” is tossed around without explanation. But what exactly does Marxism represent? Marx’s universe was simplistic. It presents a godless, sinister world where the powerful prey upon the weak, which can only be healed through revolution. In the resulting apocalypse, wealth is confiscated by revolutionaries so all may benefit. Private property is outlawed as enlightened leaders build a paradise of communism. But before utopia arrives, a principled assault must destroy capitalism.

Besides the above classic theory, a new approach, called Neo-Marxism, has arisen. It focuses upon cultural conversions for communism, and produces explosive fruit, such as Political Correctness, the Sexual Revolution, Global Warming, Hate Speech laws, Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Universal Health Care, etc. Critics warn reborn Marxism is exceedingly dangerous since it is delivered below the radar, and represents a devious bloodless communist assault, a polar-opposite of the violently murderous Bolshevik and Mao uprisings.

Mini-Summary: Marxism concerns wealth. God is dead, Darwin rules. The rich steal from the poor. Communist revolution will destroy capitalism, outlawing private property to establish paradise.

The following is a basic overview of some essential aspects of Marxism

Founder: German economist Karl Marx lived from 1818-1883, after the tumultuous Industrial Revolution, when modern business forms coalesced. This period saw much economic growth, yet laws protecting workers did not develop overnight. Many were damaged by unfettered business practice, and Marx reacted angrily to this in influential works like, “Das Kapital” and the “Communist Manifesto.”

Terminology: “Marxism” is a synonym for communism, representing the legal outlawing of private property, delivering all goods to the state. Socialism is communism-lite, with government ownership of the creation and sale of goods and services, but private property is allowed. Contra, capitalism allows free economic decisions, sanctifies contracts, and allows accumulation of wealth by legally protecting private property. Societal “classes” designate levels of wealth and power. The term bourgeoisie are the wealthy upper class; whereas proletariat are the poor working class.

Overview: Marxists insist life is only about proper distribution of wealth. Only two classes matter: rich and poor. The poor are pure, but the rich diabolical, since they effectively steal wealth via Capitalism. Marx stated, “Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed.” The government must redistribute money to the poor, since God doesn’t exist to protect mankind. Workers will eventually rise up to overthrow oppressive bosses. Marx said, “The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.”

After capitalism collapses, comes then socialism, but only temporarily. Finally communism is established, and all private property abolished. Peace on earth will reign as envy and war disappear when all people have the same status in society. Marx’s Communist Manifesto states, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Psychology: Marx believed no “human nature” exists. Ergo, persons are malleable for state use. People are not made in God’s image. Instead, human life arose accidentally. Humans are mere worker bees in the hive, who can be eliminated when not wanted or needed. Only the group matters. Marx was infatuated with science and Darwin’s new theory of Evolution, seeing everywhere proof of godless survival of the fittest. Writing partner, Engels, claimed at Marx’s funeral, “Just as Darwin developed the law of the development of organic matter, so did Marx discover the law of human history.”

History: The Marxist view of history is fatalistic and magically progressive. It borrows Philosopher Hegel’s “dialectic,” teaching human society automatically improves over time. Marx believed a variant of biblical catastrophism, where an inevitable worldwide uprising of the poor demand Apocalyptic revolution. When communism arrives, history ends.

Religion: Marx taught God doesn’t exist. Religion is a lie, a tranquilizer for the masses. It cannot be tolerated since it’s delusional, another way the powerful exploit the poor (Lenin sanctioned every attack against Christians, except mass extermination). It follows that no soul exists or any category of “sin.” Morality is defined by how any action affects achieving or maintaining communism.

Influential scholar Eric Voegelin, in “New Science of Politics,” argues persuasively Marxism is a kind of reborn pagan Gnosticism. He claims modern liberalism seeks a heaven on earth, achieved via an elitist sect using intellectual pseudo-enlightenment to herd poor souls to salvation. Prof. Igal Halfin makes the same claim in, “From Darkness to Light, Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia.”

Economics: Marx struggled to develop a concise, positive economic model. He preferred vilifying capitalism. Boss and employee were “master and slave.” Marx loathed the wealthy and their riches, stating, “I do not like money, money is the reason we fight.” He believed simply overthrowing capitalism would jump-start paradise. He claimed that given capitalism’s inherent instability, and immoral nature, government must lead via a command economy.

Marx was infatuated with scientific certainty, relentlessly claiming his theories were as rigorously proved as chemistry or physics. Of course, this reveals a fetish for the Enlightenment cult of measurable progress, as opposed to any empirical breakthrough. Premier Marxist scholar Richard Pipes, in “Communism,” writes “Marxism was thus dogma masquerading as science.”

Government: Marx spoke favorably of democracy, but called for dictatorship. The lack of natural law theory, or democracy means Marxist governments essentially revived classical paganism. No person has any rights versus state action. The individual is nothing, the group everything. Politicians, and the state itself become gods, illustrated by the massive cults of personality all Marxist states erected.

Legal Doctrine: Marxism produces no real constitution since the legal process is sublimated to state will, allowing no fixed foundation. According to P. H. Vigor’s, “A Guide to Marxism,” law itself is an upper class tool created so the wealthy can keep power, but is no societal good, in itself. Peter H. Juviler’s “Revolutionary Law and Order; Politics and Social Change in the USSR,” claims no record exists of any Russian prosecution ever ending in an innocent verdict.

So Marxist legal theory is essentially antinomian, and the judicial system exists only to help protect state interest. In this sense, a Marxist Bill of Rights would be an absurd contradiction. The astonishing toll of murdered innocents in China and the USSR has no logical explanation except for profound defects in Marxist doctrine. Genocide expert Prof. R.J. Rummel estimates some 200 million souls were exterminated by 20th century communist governments.

Openness to Dialogue: Marxism is an ideology of pure secular dogma, hermetically sealed as any religious creed. Marx considered his theories proved, by definition. Merely to question his ideas was a diabolical attack against Truth itself. Marx said his critics used… “not a scalpel but a weapon. Its object…not to refute but to destroy.”

Revolution: Marxism is a violently revolutionary doctrine. Marx claimed capitalism’s Armageddon was inevitable, but followers should bear arms to hasten change. Since the rich will never give up their capital voluntarily, it must be taken by force. After this, the arduous task of rebuilding society begins. Lenin’s “New Man” is created by education. Those who don’t adapt can be eliminated to purify the whole. But capitalism must be destroyed before healing can occur.

Neo-Marxist Innovations: As Lenin in Russia, and Mao in China launched Communist revolts, the prophesied global apocalypse seemed imminent. But the staggering failure of Marxist theory to make productive societies, coupled with the West’s relentless growth forced an intellectual crisis.

Twentieth century leftist progressives developed a Neo-Marxism less warlike and more psychologically attractive by combining Marx with Freud, creating a highly sexualized socialism. The Frankfurt School were academic Marxists who escaped Frankfurt, Germany to avoid Hitler’s wrath. Relocated to the U.S., they successfully infused Marxism into American universities. For example, “Political Correctness” is a Frankfurt movement, and the first modern use of this phrase is found in Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book,” according to Geoffrey Hughes’ “Political Correctness: A History of Semantics.”

Marxist theories now dominate Western universities. Movements like Race Theory, Feminism, Gay Rights, Modern Art, Critical Theory, Animal Rights, Gender Studies, abortion advocacy, Deconstruction, penal reform, Hate Crimes legislation, etc are all informed by Frankfurt scholarship. Redefined Marxism has produced spectacularly disruptive results. Some argue Obama’s election is a direct result of cultural Marxism’s success. Universal Health Care is another Marxist holy grail. The USSR had free medical treatment, notable for a staggering lack of basic supplies, horribly outdated methods, and horrifically filthy conditions.

Cloward-Piven Scheme for Planned Catastrophe: Ominously, in 1966, Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Piven published a theory outlining methods to destroy a healthy capitalist economy and force communist revolution. This eliminates capitalism by making impossible state budgetary demands, thereby bringing government insolvency.

Critics claim Obama’s budget is an example of the Cloward-Pivin model of planned economic destruction of a functioning capitalist economy via sabotage. Outlays are so gigantic, and so dreadfully misspent, that our financial infrastructure will soon collapse. A trillion dollar tax increase and spending rising by $10 trillion dollars over the next decade is probable. If so, government default will occur, only offset by mass currency printing, which will then bankrupt the general populace. The middle class will fall. Chronic inflation will result, causing America to lose its sterling credit rating. Global financial players must dump the dollar as it swan-dives. Then, hyperinflation will accelerate, and the era of superpower America will end.

Would the above plan be Marxist? Consider the following statement regarding USSR dictator Vladimir Lenin’s opinion on the topic, from famed economist John Maynard Keynes’ book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

The first American experiment in Marxism will not occur under Obama, if those are his beliefs. Instead, William Bradford established the Massachusetts Plymouth Colony in 1620, using a charter creating a common granary. After two years of socialist hardship and near starvation, the colonists opted for capitalism. Afterwards, they celebrated a Thanksgiving to God for saving them, despite their economic illiteracy.

Marx observed, “…all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice…the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Let us hope, given astonishingly murderous attempts by Lenin, Mao and Stalin to create the paradise Marxism offers but never delivers, we will not subject ourselves to the farce of the second-coming of an American economic, political and human rights disaster.


I am so amazed by God. I just recently became a father and it is the most joyous experience besides being married. I look forward each and everyday to go home and spend time with the both of them.

We have recently opened up our home to a young adults small group called the Loft. Ours is the Loft @ Quincy and its the second Thursday of every month. It is a time to get together and drink some coffee and discuss the many things of God. We will be discussing World Views. It is a great time.

God bless


Yes that’s right you read the title correctly!

Perez Hilton or Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. is a Bigot! Persecuting people because of their convictions! This guy pours out hate on people because of their stances on same sex marriage!

Well, I say bring on the persecution, because the Bible calls me blessed!

Keep it up Miss CA! Keeping standing fast in your beliefs!