Archive for the ‘Obama’ Tag

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.


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.

Communism, Fascism, America, and God

Communism, Fascism, America, and God

Recently I have heard great debate over the direction this administration is steering the country. Terms like Socialism and Fascism have been thrown around at will. What exactly is the difference between the two and which is correct?

Communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the welfare and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, and often a singular leader. In many cases a dominating military apparatus, as a way to stifle opposition, bolsters both fascist and communist rule. Both types of government grant the central government some degree of control over the economic means of production (as opposed to, say a free market, or laissez-faire economy as historically in the US), and At times social policy.

Fascism has strong corporatist fundamentals, where the government has considerable rule over private enterprise, but does not totally co-opt it (as in communism). The NAZIs considered themselves a “Third Way” between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than entirely nationalizing private enterprise and taking over production, the government had a very powerful influence.

Both Communism and Fascism are a totalitarian system. They required control of all aspects of the economy and culture as a whole and of the individual citizen. In order to achieve this they both used a combination of populist zeal built around a cult of personality for the leader, and fear. Communism was initiated first but the Fascists garnered insight from the Communist experience and put their techniques into practice. Communism seized all private property in the name of the state and placed all industrial and economic production under the direct control of the government, Fascism left some small business and large industries in the hands of the private sector as long as they provided the output the government required. In their basic philosophical beliefs the differences between communism and fascism are very small.

In rhetoric, communist and fascist leaders described their ideology with passion that on the surface seems concerned with wellbeing of the general populous. History, on the other hand, tells a different story. Hitler said ” We have endeavored to depart from the external, the superficial, endeavored to forget social origin, class, profession, fortune, education, capital, and everything that separates men, in order to reach that which bind them together”, while Marx believed “working men have no country.” Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, both totalitarian in nature, while fascism has less central control over industry.

While neither socialism nor fascism have a place within the framework of the Constitution, it does seem that this administration is pursuing more national control of industrial and economic production. If history has thought us anything it is that these ideologies bring only suffering and pain to the people they were intended to protect. Are we headed toward a government that promises prosperity for the people while only ensuring security of the elite?

Scriptural references for Socialism and Fascism

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:34-37)

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat. (Ex. 16:16-18)

In light of these passages (and others similar) some believe that “Christian” ideology depicts a government benevolent to its people. While there is no doubt that God would have his people choose to love through benevolent actions, no passage of scripture sets a government structure to force benevolence from its people. Benevolence to the creator is a matter of love. Throughout the Old and New Testament love was the central theme. John’s gospel depicts Gods love in giving His son to redeem humanity. With this benevolent gift, God CHOSE to give. It was a matter of choice. Just as love, true benevolence cannot exist without choice. Forced benevolence only breads resentment!

Holy Agrivation

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!


Obama: We are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens

This is the End……

All of us who worried that Barack Obama was a socialist were crazy… right?

Let’s see. The government controls much of the banking/finance/insurance industries. The government effectively controls the auto industry. The government just fired GM’s CEO. The government is forcing the sale of a private American company (Chrysler) to a foreign corporation (Fiat). The government wants to control what kind of car your drive and know how and when you drive it. The government is working on controlling your health care, choosing what medical services you get and when you get them. The government is working on a Cap & Tax plan that will add new control and taxes, along with a smart grid system where the government can actually control the thermostat in your house. The current tax plan and policies are admittedly designed to be a “redistribution” from one wealth class to another. And the Treasury Secretary is asking for greater powers over corporations and companies, regardless of whether or not they received any tax payer dollars.

Doesn’t sound like the march to socialism at all, does it?

What is the government not doing? Stepping in to replace union bosses or work on union contracts. I wonder why.

The Stem Cell Question

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

Finally, a Tax Cheat with Self-Respect?

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.