Recycling We Can Believe In

28 10 2008

Is Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” really anything new? As I’ve noted before, it’s more of a recycling of old-time socialism first brought to political life by Woodrow Wilson and perfected by FDR and his New Deal. 

Voters who are so disgusted with George W. Bush that they will take any candidate of the opposing party need to understand what they are getting in exchange for their loathing. The fact that Obama appears charming lulls these voters into an even deeper trance. But neither hatred of Bush nor sleep-walking with the Pied Piper of Politics is an excuse for the facts.

Jonah Goldberg‘s column in the LA Times today is worth the read:

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama — all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that “organized social control” via a “socialized economy” was the only means to create “free” individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems. 

Dewey lives on too in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, often invokes Dewey when justifying his own dream of indoctrinating public school students in “social justice.” Obama doesn’t condone Ayers’ ’70s-era bombings, but he certainly subscribes to Ayers’ educational vision. In fact, Ayers’ educational work is the primary defense for the candidate’s association with an unrepentant terrorist. 

Much has been made of Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” that things are better when we “spread the wealth around.” The Obama campaign, with the usual willing accomplices, has rebuffed charges of “socialism” or “radicalism” with the usual eye-rolling.

But Obama’s words that day in Ohio were perfectly consistent with his past statements…

Read the rest. It’s a must-read.

Advertisements




The Life Factor

18 08 2008

Most Americans want change from the next president. But change is pretty much a given no matter who is elected. The entire mantra of change being trumpeted by Barack Obama implies one of two things: Bush is running again in 2008 or McCain will be Bush 3.0, neither of which is true. It’s not wrong for Americans to desire change from their next president. We just need to understand what we’re getting. And with McCain we have a very good idea. But with Obama, we have no idea, with the exception of how his views on life will translate into politics. Last Saturday, Barack Obama and John McCain visited with evangelical Christian, Rick Warren, pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in California and their answers on life spoke volumes on how they will legislate life.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Rick Warren he was not sure when an unborn baby should be considered a human life worth protecting. “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,” said Obama.

It’s obvious anything above the pay grade of President of the United States of America can only mean God, whom Obama believes in. How puzzling that he doesn’t just listen to what He has to say about it then. I wonder where Obama does say life begins. If not conception, and obviously not birth, any murder of a person of any age could then be classed as a “botched abortion.” Fortunately, moral trends in America appear to be swinging back in favor of life as seen in cases of murder of a pregnant mother being sentenced for taking two lives. More:

Obama contends he believes in Roe v. Wade not because he is pro-abortion, but because women do not make decisions about abortion “casually.” He also suggested Americans can find common ground on ways to prevent “unwanted pregnancies.”

No amount of planning an abortion morally justifies it. Obama continues to paint himself into moral corners as he attempts to appeal to voters right of center. Obama’s views bring to mind a warning from author, Henri Nouwen’s book, In the Name of Jesus: “What makes the temptation of power so semmingly irresistable?  Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.” This describes Obama’s campaign perfectly. He believes it’s not up to him to legislate when life begins, but each individual can. And he believes it’s up to government (led by a Christian president) to give everything to the poor at the expense of others as opposed to the biblical teaching of individual believers to each do their part to help the poor. 

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on the other hand, strongly declared that he believes a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. “I have a twenty-five year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he stated. “That’s my commitment.”

Much better. No matter how appealing Obama’s “change” might appear to Christians, there is simply no justification for voting for him. Life is the most important issue, and the easiest to define. Any candidate failing this elementary check point, is not fit to be president of a country whose Declaration of Independence declares life first among its unalienable rights provided by God. Especially when that candidate doesn’t care what God says about life.