Archive for the ‘Obama’ Tag
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.
This crap about Obama saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens is agrivating me with a holy agrivation. It kills me to know that Christians actually voted for this guy!
I know I just posted a blog about how I need to pray for this guy, but I really believe that we the people the Christians need to pray for this nation! The Dems are running this nation further from the Constitution! We are heading down a road towards Facism!
Well Mr. President I AM STILL A CHRISTIAN and there is nothing that will SEPARATE ME FROM THE LOVE OF GOD!!!
I feel that we are getting closer and closer to the very bitter end! We must all pray and stay vigilant!
So many of the decisions and the people that he has put into office have made anti-Christ decisions and it is time that we stand up and say no more! We will not be ruled by tyranny and we not live in fear!
This week, President Obama rescinded an executive order that prohibited the use of federal funds for stem cell research. Though this move is the fulfillment of a campaign promise (and shouldn’t surprise us), it is very disturbing for those who are advocates of life. The fundamental impediment to our acceptance of embryonic stem cell research has to do with destruction of the human embryo.
Thankfully, President Obama said he opposed human “cloning,” which would be the creation of human embryos solely for the production of stem cells, rather than with the intention of creating a new human being.
Advocates of life believe that life begins at conception, and since an embryo uninterrupted by death grows into a baby—it is a life. Ethically, any life is inherently valuable and should never be voluntarily destroyed. It is hard to justify the taking of a life in order to extend or improve someone else’s. It seems like cannibalism on some level. And without the protection of the basic right to stay alive, aren’t all other human rights sort of arbitrary?
On the other hand, supporters of stem cell research say it will open up a broad front of research to find better treatments for ailments like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses. These supporters claim they are being “pro-life” by acting on the moral imperative to alleviate suffering. They are also quick to point out the embryos used for this research are the unused embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise have simply been thrown away.
As you listen to both sides of the debate, it becomes obvious this issue is more complex than it first appears. And there’s some inconsistent logic. Consider, for example, that though the pro-life movement regards all embryos as human persons, pro-life leaders seem mainly concerned about the relatively few embryos that are killed by having their stem cells extracted. There seems to be little or no concern over the many hundreds of thousands of embryos which have been terminated or which will eventually die in in-vitro fertilization clinics.
If we are against the use of stem cell research on the basis of embryonic destruction, shouldn’t we also be against in-vitro fertilization clinics because there are always excess embryos that get discarded?
But how can those of us who love life fight against in-vitro fertilization clinics when those clinics give infertile couples (and those who have great difficulty getting pregnant) the joy of being able to have children? Shouldn’t we celebrate that?
As you can see, conversations about medical ethics can get complex and circuitous very quickly (like many socio-political issues do)—which is precisely the point that most of us miss. We oversimplify issues; we stand on soapboxes; we scream and yell at those who disagree with us (all in the name of God, of course).
Before you scream too loudly over this move by President Obama, keep in mind that the prohibition for using federal funds under the executive order by President Bush did not stop the practice of harvesting stem cells from unused embryos in fertility clinics. Even President Bush, who disagreed with this ethically, did not try to stop the research completely. Why? It’s a complex issue.
Think about it. You may be (as I am) against destroying embryos to use for stem cell research, but I bet you are delighted for the couples who get to have children as a result of in-vitro fertilization clinics.
You may not be for stem cell research, but what if there was a treatment that utilized stem cells (that would have been tossed away) that would curb a crippling disease tormenting your child or loved one? Wouldn’t you wonder if that wasn’t a good use of what would have otherwise been thrown in the garbage?
Perhaps you scream “NO!”—but can you understand why others might struggle here?
The good news is there is new research that may make this whole discussion moot. According to Science Daily, Dr. Nagy, senior investigator at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, there is a “new method of generating stem cells that does not require embryos as starting points and could be used to generate cells from many adult tissues such as a patient’s own skin cells.”
As Christians wrestle through issues like this in the 21st century, we need to remember these kinds of developments are not addressed explicitly in Scripture—there are only general parameters to ponder, wonder about, pray over and wrestle through. The problem is many of us try to make these issues black-and-white simple when they often are not. They are filled with complexity. But complexity is too colorful for some of us, and we prefer doling out black-and-white conclusions.
Remember the movie Pleasantville? In the universe of Pleasantville (filmed in black and white instead of color), life was … pleasant. Nothing akin to the horrors of war, famine or AIDS existed there. The bathrooms didn’t even have toilets—that would have been impolite. The high-school basketball team never missed a shot, firemen only rescued cats stuck in trees (there were no house fires), families were perfect and teen sweethearts never went past “first base.” Everything, absolutely everything, was perfect in that idyllic little town.
Some people try to make every issue like Pleasantville—simple and clear, with some added Bible verses blazing (along with chapter and verse) to back up our opinions. We tell people what to think and what to believe. Telling people what seems so much simpler than telling them why. And safer, too.
Thinking, cognizing, conceptualizing, perceiving, understanding, comprehending and cogitating—all are words for actions that are much more complex than simply commanding and directing. Demanding that people think a certain way in order to belong is so clean, so black-and-white simple. Helping them internalize the why behind a position and letting them participate in a discussion on conclusions is both cumbersome and potentially dangerous—they may conclude something different than what we think. God forbid.
Certainly we can tell others at the water cooler and in our churches what we believe about issues like this, but it’s important that we talk and listen and trust God to help us wrestle through the seeming contradictory pros and cons involved. The truth never changes, but how it is applied within the context of the 21st century needs careful consideration. But “careful consideration” demands more trust in both God and His people. That will mean we need to be tolerant, patient and open to diversity and difference of opinion—open to color
Maybe it was an oversight, maybe it was more, but President Obama’s nominee for the newly concocted position of “Performance Czar” has withdrawn her name from consideration. Why? Because like Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel and other prominent Democrats, Nancy Killefer was caught avoiding her taxes. Does she actually have some self respect and appreciate the need for Washington officials to live by the same rules as the rest of us, or is she a sacrificial lamb designed to take the heat of the Daschle tax controversy? Who knows, but its about time someone appointed by President Obama is accountable since he apparently is not. So much for this change he promised. With lobbyists and tax cheats abound, and a pork-filled stimulus package that is anything but stimulus…. it is quite clear that Obama’s administration is business as usual afterall. UPDATE: Apparently Tom Daschle has just withdrawn as well. Finally a little accountability and responsibility in the Obama White House. Its a little too late to keep from tarnishing the Great “O” after appointing other tax cheats, lobbyists and the like. It should have happened sooner, but I applaud President Obama and Mr. Daschle from stopping the problem before it got worse.