Say it: He's a socialist

There is a fundamental difference between Marxism, provider of the Socialist philosophy, and Christian teachings. The difference makes the two world views incompatible, in other words, you cannot be both. Whoever says that they are compatible either lies or is ignorant. Marxists believe that a non-Socialist society is to blame for what is wrong with people and therefore, change has to begin with those who are responsible for society, mainly the rich. Others, not they, have to change and the others are in the end all those who oppose Socialism. People are either forced to comply or they are killed, as happened in Nazi Germany. If you put right what is wrong in society, so goes Marxist theory, you will heal injustice and people, products of a hostile society, will become their good selves. Healing is created by installing more and more Socialists in office, Socialist immorality and Socialist programs. Obama has not touched corruption and moral issues. His plans for dealing with issues are of economic nature and are pure Marxism, blaming the non-Socialist enemies and distribution of money to bribe poor voters, make them dependent on government and cement with it your power. Marxism's concepts lead to the welfare state – and on to a totalitarian system built on lies where government is central. There is no real concern for people; power is at the heart of all their projects.

Christianity teaches that what is wrong is the fallen nature of man, who gives in to the evil inside. Moral change in people and restoring the broken relationship with God will change what is wrong in society. Christian teachings are at the heart of our Constitution. Responsibility for oneself is a pre-condition for a healthy society. That is why America is special and prosperous. Government's task is to clear the way for initiatives of their citizens and not block it. John McCain's and Sarah Palin's priority to clean up the government and bring it back to the people is exactly what America needs. They know as we do that Republicans especially those at the center in Washington are also responsible for ousting our Constitution from American society with devastating consequences. John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting at this corruption, beginning with their own ranks. Their priorities are job creation, drilling, and fighting inflation. They are pro-life and so is the Republican Party.

Senator Obama answered the question of the Reverend Warren regarding when life begins during a national television interview with "This is above my pay grade". I think he lied. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over centuries the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition…. We don't know. The point is that it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose." I think she lied. She is neither an ardent nor a normal Catholic; she is a godless Socialist pagan. Colorado Archbishop Charles Chaput commented "Democrats don't know Christianity." No woman has a right to have her child killed.

I heard Senator Biden say that he is pro-life but cannot force his religious views on others. So he is part of the abortion gang like a myriad of Democratic colleagues who also like to be on both sides.

The Democratic Party with the leadership of Obama, the Clintons, Reid and Pelosi and comrades is an illegitimate party which is destroying the Constitution which leads to spiritual, political and economic disaster. It is illegitimate because of policy principles like abortion and also Darwinism being taught in schools. Instead of protecting life this party promotes killing life. The Republican Party on the other hand is legitimate in principle with a majority which wants to do what is right but lacking a national and personal purpose and therefore are so often appeasing what is wrong. Nobody wants to risk his position. It is the Appeaser's Party. There are too many who are looking after themselves first and their country second..

One central theme is enough to clarify why I say that the Socialist Democratic Party is illegitimate. Their policies are Marxist and not American and they promote immorality. It was the Soviet Union, for instance, which was the first state making abortion legal already at the beginning of the twenties. Having grown up in the godless totalitarian Nazi society it is appalling for me to watch that in America politicians can speak of their "Christian faith" and at the same time make abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality their party policy. The consequence is the destruction of families and the concept of family without that those who practice or promote these concepts are thrown out of their churches or out of power by their voters. Unfortunately corruption has also entered Christian churches. Democrats are not fit for American Constitutional government.

No government or parliament across the globe has the authority to overrule God. The godless national Socialists, called Nazis, did it and my family, Jewish people, all Germans, and Europeans paid dearly for it because I and millions of others did not see our own evil inside. American soldiers shed their blood to liberate us from Nazi power. It pains me to see America on the same track. Not only those who actively promote the godless programs allowed by our government establishment but also those who for personal reasons or lack of backbone appease them will pay for it, here and when they face their creator. I know the consequence of a godless government. America must have a God fearing government. The abortionists are closer to the Nazis than to our founding fathers. Both base their philosophy and action on lies.

According to an article of Gary Parker, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, in our newspaper Press-Register Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, the national abortion provider, said, "I am still having trouble expressing the depth of my anger about McCain's choice of a running mate." She and Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, Pro-Choice America, were featured speakers at the Democratic National convention in Denver. They endorsed Obama who supports federal funding for abortions. As Illinois state senator he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Bill, which would have prohibited the killing of late term babies that survive attempted abortions. You wonder on what information Obama voted. Does he play superficially with human life? The following information is easy to come by. Pelosis' statement at the beginning of this article clearly means that it doesn't matter whether the baby inside the womb of the mother is alive or not we will kill it anyway.

There are various ways to perform an abortion but abortion is said to be more dangerous than child birth. In a late-term partial birth abortion, which is also used for advanced pregnancies, the cervix is dilated to allow passage of a ring forceps. A foot or lower leg is located and pulled into the vagina. The baby is extracted in breech fashion until the head is just inside the cervix. The baby's legs hang outside the woman's body. With the baby face-down, scissors are plunged into the baby's head at the nape of the neck and spread open to enlarge the wound. A suction tip is inserted and the baby's brain is removed. The skull collapses and the baby is delivered. Sharp and suction curettage is continued until the walls of the womb are clean.

Suction Aspiration is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Another procedure is called Dilatation and Evacuation and is performed during the second trimester, 4-6 months of pregnancy. A pliers-like instrument is needed because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, and tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them.

Let me educate Obama, Pelosi and their abortion gang who are exposing an unbelievable superficiality and disdain for human life in dealing with this subject of central importance for our nation. After all, according to the statistics around 50 million killings of living human beings took place since the Supreme Court with one vote majority made unconstitutional abortion legal. The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and 10 million others – Germans, Slavs, gypsies, handicapped, Christians, their opposition and others.

Life begins at conception. Modern technology allows observing what happens in the uterus of a woman and how fast in only 5 weeks a fetus grows from the size of a sesame seed to a baby developing brain, backbone, heart and everything else what makes a person. Science explains that it is possible that from one cell sex, the color of the eyes and hairs and a myriad of other features can be determined. 18 days after conception there is a heart beat, after 40 days the fetus has brain waves. Nothing changes in the 9 months of pregnancy, everything just grows. My wife Dina and I can watch on photos how our grandchild to come grows from the size of sesame seed to a baby. We also saw in Fox News a video of another baby in the womb of her mother, a bit elder than our grand child. It is fascinating! Abortionists must be stopped killing human beings

We are living in the middle of humanity's insurrection against God. The insurrection consists of the organized abandonment of God's commandments in the once Christian Western world, and the establishment of a global social and political infrastructure, which is contrary to His order but capable of integrating Christian voters with a toothless Christian understanding. The United States are now spearheading this movement. At the same time this nation still has a strong moral substance with people committed to reverse the trend into disaster. America will never win the ideological war unless it can defeat the lies which dominate our society. Change must come, but there must be moral change, each person beginning with oneself. Stop lying, make restitution, and stand up for truth. America should be spearheading lasting freedom across the world. Only freedom based on our Constitution and the absolute truth of God can last.

At least they really debated

When or if the McCain-Obama debate takes place on Sept. 26, and ditto for the Palin-Biden faceoff on Oct. 2, little of the fulsome rhetoric will resemble the statesmanlike duels classically understood as debating. What we call "debates" today are nothing but joint press conferences, with journalists asking the questions and virtually no direct cross-examination or swordplay between the candidates themselves. Lincoln and Douglas would laugh these guys to Springfield and back.

Kudos, therefore, to a radio listeners' club called the Colorado Prager Fans, aided by DU Prof. Corey Ciocchetti as moderator, for staging a real debate Monday night at South High in Denver between talk show host Dennis Prager of Los Angeles and local lefty writer David Sirota, Philly boy turned Coloradan by way of Montana.

"What's Better for America: Liberal or Conservative Ideas?" was the topic, and the protagonists with Cocchetti's help kept it lively, meaty, and mostly civil for two hours before a packed hall of over 1200. While the central issue wasn't in keeping with strict debate procedure, which poses a proposition to be affirmed by one side and negated by the other, what I liked was the relentless slugging match between Sirota on the left and Prager on the right, with plenty of thrust and parry, jabs and counterpunches. It was utterly unlike the stiff and sterile yawners we'll get this fall from the Presidential Debate Commission.

The organizers were also imaginative, and the two principals admirably resourceful, in reducing their vast topic to six big areas with an eight-point buffet under each of them, from which each debater could graze at will during his 2x4 minutes of remarks. Do the math and you'll see that meant the audience -- a thousand-plus conservatives versus Ken Gordon, Wade Buchanan, and a few dozen other liberals, to judge from applause -- heard 16 glorious minutes of intense crossfire under each of the main areas.

Those were, if you're wondering... racial issues and policies... the economy... freedom of speech... culture issues... foreign policy and defense... and America's reputation in the world.

Who won? That probably depended on who you asked. In the post just below this, Ken Davenport writes up the affair as if Prager had mopped the floor with Sirota, but I didn't see it that way. Though David was bobbing and weaving and using the ropes much of the time like an overmatched boxer, he fought gamely, showed remarkable spirit and stage presence, seemed unfazed by the lopsided crowd reaction, and landed his share of punches. When I saw Gordon next day and asked how he though his guy had done, the Senate leader and seasoned courtroom attorney didn't say "Ouch" as one might do after a wipeout. He said good show, and I agree.

Substantively, of course, I agree with most of Ken Davenport's observations about the superiority of Prager's arguments at the debate, and about the formulaic hollowness we perceived in many of Sirota's lines -- but I allow that some of this may be perception alone on our part as conservatives. Talk to someone from the other side and you might get the opposite verdict.

"Where are all the conservatives, anyway?" asked David Sirota at one point -- in relation to spending, or the bailout, or civil liberties, or intervention abroad, I forget which -- and it was a telling shot. Prager actually got his bell rung at that moment, though the big guy (big physically and with outsize self-confidence to match) didn't realize it at all. He just went happily along, as befits radio's leading happiness maven.

David also scored, I thought, with his comment that liberal-conservative does not always align these days with Democrat-Republican, but here too Prager declined to engage. Each man mentioned the neo-conservatives once or twice, and it would have been illuminating -- if no great crowd-pleaser -- to hear them thoughtfully discuss that over-demonized but under-analyzed aspect of today's ideological landscape. David hewed closely all evening to his self-description as a progressive, not a liberal, but the onrushing format distracted him from explaining what the difference is, as he promised to do at the outset. I'd really like to know.

Bottom line, it was an edifying as well as entertaining occasion no matter which side you were pulling for, and I again congratulate the sponsors as well as the protagonists. At least they really debated.

When Prager & Sirota faced off

Monday at South High in Denver, a big crowd came out to see the noted conservative writer and radio host Dennis Prager debate Denver-based "progressive" writer David Sirota. The debate centered on a fundamental question that should be of interest to everyone in this election season: Whether liberal or conservatives ideas and ideals are better for our country. It covered a host of issues, including foreign policy, race, media, economics, and domestic social policy. I went into the evening knowing pretty much what Dennis would say, because I am a fan and avid listener of his show. But I was curious as to what the liberal Sirota would say -- how strong his arguments would be about what the left believes about America and how if views the major issues that face us. It was hardly a fair fight. Sirota seems like a bright fellow, but he's 33 years old and typical of the "children's wing" of the Democrat Party -- the one which can follow a script, but has little practical life experience. After listening to the talking points he gave last night I have one overriding question: Does David Sirota actually know any conservatives? From his answers last night I find it hard to believe that he does.

Against Prager he was clearly overmatched. For a well-known progressive writer and "thinker", Sirota sure didn't offer much insight that you can't find at the HuffingtonPost or at MoveOn.org. Sirota trotted out all the well-worn canards about Republicans in painting a very simplistic view of what conservatives think. He accused conservatives of not recognizing race in this country, of not wanting to help the poor and the needy, and of living in a "fantasy" world that ignores the cold hard realities of life in America.

In making his arguments, Sirota cherry-picked points of data from various polls and studies which he claimed made his views "irrefutable fact" -- but that were clearly taken either out of context or were spun in such a way as to be maximally damaging to conservative positions. It came off transparent and was in no way convincing. He repeated the claims of the Bush tax cuts being "for the rich", that America under a Republican administration has been "stomping around the world" with "hubris", that we were lied into a war in Iraq (that he claims was really about oil), and that we would do well to care about the fact that the rest of the world dislikes us. "It's a national security issue" that we aren't popular -- as if it were any less dangerous when Bill Clinton was traveling around the world feeling everyone's pain.

For Prager it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel. In his typically clear style, he offered a powerful counter punch to Sirota's liberal doom-and-gloom. He unapologetically told the audience -- a largely pro-Prager crowd -- that America is the greatest force for good in the world. He said that the problem for blacks in America is largely one of their own making, and that he doesn't care whether the rest of the world loves us, only that they respect us. He painted a picture of an opposite world view from that of Sirota: where America is a principled force for good in the world. It was standing ovation material.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the evening was being able to see into the narrative that the "progressive" movement is pushing about America. It represents a window into the socialist-driven policies that Barack Obama will pursue as president -- and it isn't pretty. Sirota painted a picture of what he calls "corporate socialism" -- which he argues already exists in this country. It comes in the form of the $700 billion bailout for the "fat cats on Wall Street". Or the $120/barrel price of oil that represents a windfall profit to "big oil". Or the tax breaks for corporations that then "ship jobs overseas". In Sirota's mind, America is run by a cabal of corporate chieftans who pull the levers for government -- all at the expense of the "little guy".

Prager last night called this for what it is -- the kind of Marxian materialism that underscores how the left looks at the world. I couldn't agree more. I studied Marx under some very accomplished socialists at the London School of Economics and I can tell you that socialists live in a secular world that views things purely in terms of material gains and losses. In this paradigm, the only motivation for anything is the material world -- whether it be land, money or oil. It is impossible that the United States would enter Iraq to make the world more secure and free the Iraqi people from tyranny. It just has to be about Halliburton and oil.

This, then, is the world view that the progressives hold. And it explains some of the more outlandish claims against corporate America, which must be structured to exploit the world in an evil search of more material gains. That's why Sirota and progressives like him believe that collectivist solutions are the answer; only government can ensure that society's goods are distributed fairly. It starts out by raising taxes and then leads to the redistribution of wealth -- all on a model that will engineer society down to the lowest common denominator.

If Sirota represents what America will be like with an Obama presidency, we should all be afraid. Be very afraid.

What moves the world? Ideas

Amidst the hurly burly of society, it is easy to overlook the fundamental fact that ideas rule the world. This will seem to be an odd claim to make, given the overwhelming role that the continuing hubbub invariably plays in any society. But the world has always been governed by ideas, the only question being which ones and for how long. Of course, force and deception in the form of military conquest and the propagation of questionable doctrines and ideologies, are not to be underestimated. But the first is either an attempt to suppress ideas or to enforce them, and the second plays upon human gullibility, which depends on truth to rescue it.

That is, the counter to or the justification for the use of force is always an idea, and false ideas obtain currency because they appear plausible, whether from frequent or widespread dissemination, or both.

At the heart of the United States of America is the idea that all men are created equal in their natural rights. This is grounded in human nature, meaning the capacity for reasoning and living in political community. But this idea has always had been opposed by those who believe they have a natural right to rule others without their consent.

While America has survived every assault from without, from British imperialism to Soviet expansionism, the greatest danger lies within. That is the serpentine charm of moral relativism, whether of individuals, societies or historical periods, which undermines commitment to all ideas, particularly true ones. For once one has abandoned the possibility of truth, false doctrines invariably prevail.

But these challenges have not gone unanswered. Thanks to the unswerving and comprehensive intellectual inquiries of the philosopher Leo Strauss, thousands of persons have repaired to the study of classics of human thought, not to mention the appreciation of European civilization and American republicanism. Persons in our universities, in the government and elsewhere have taken on the mission to pursue the truth and encourage others to do so, energized by the hope that our civilization and our liberty can be saved from moral and political confusion.

Modern republicanism began as an attempt to solve the centuries-old problem of the relationship between religion and politics, each vying for dominance and corrupting each other in the process. The victory of free government in the United States engendered the sovereignty of politics and the moral foundation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. But the success of moral relativism in undermining the remarkable marriage of limited government and freedom of religion has reopened questions once thought closed.

Both the American government and the Christian religion have come under attack from those calling themselves progressives, leading to a counterattack by political philosophers which has so far borne only limited fruit. But I can testify from my own experience that there are no more dynamic discussions, investigations, arguments and debates occurring than those among political philosophers.

Equally vital to our future as a civilization and a free nation is the revival of religious sentiment and apologetics (defense of the faith) among persons learned in the scriptures and theology, certainly, but also in the philosophic tradition that existed alongside Christianity for centuries and within the political system that secured its freedom in the modern age.

Besides studying political philosophy in graduate school, and drawing upon it over three decades of teaching, I have participated in numerous conferences that have delved deeply into the fundamental ideas of the Western world, keeping alive an understanding of our precious heritage. More recently, I have attended lectures on the contrast between Christianity, modern scientism, atheism and "post modernism," as well as debates on the divergent views of Christians and Muslims on their holy books, founders and teachings.

In these philosophic and theological realms ideas are examined with utmost seriousness. Participants reject the temptation to find convergence among ideas that are fundamentally opposed to each other. Constitutional government cannot be saved and Biblical teachings cannot benefit us if we imagine "we can all just get along."

The future of the world is being determined right now among seemingly obscure academics and theologians. They know and appreciate the fact that chatter is no substitute for serious thought. We must defeat evil not just on the battlefield, which Americans have admirably done over their history. We must also discredit evil at its source. Jesus once said that "in this world there will be tribulation," doubtless both in action and in thought, but that is no reason for us to resign to the enemy what is good and true and beautiful.

Colorado GOP asked for it

"I'd hate to have us responsible for putting Obie in the big house," wrote Ken Davenport in reaction to a top analyst's prediction that Colorado may become the Florida of 2008. My reply to Ken was that I think the forecast by Stuart Rothenberg is spot on. If McCain wins the entire south, the entire midwest except the five upper states that Obama will probably take (MN, IA, MI, IL, WI), and the entire west except the coast (which Obama has in the bag) and except Colorado and NM, that will get McCain to 265 electoral votes. 270 are needed to win. McCain has to hold on to Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Nevada, plus take either Colorado or New Mexico to win. He will probably lose NM, leaving Colorado as the swing state. Think back over all the chicanery, all the back-stabbing by "moderates" against normal, healthy, courageous people just like Sarah Palin, all the missed opportunity, all the perfidious leadership, all the adultery, all the lying, all the other general moral confusion, and all the spinelessness and lack of any kind of consistent conviction or character by Republicans in Colorado over the last 10 years - all of it done because they thought nobody was watching, nobody could hold them accountable because they were rich and influential and famous, it would help their short-term political prospects and not really harm anything, they told themselves, even as it turned the political complexion of Colorado's legislature, governor's mansion, and congressional delegation exactly upside-down in terms of party composition and virtually destroyed GOP spirit and cohesion throughout the state. Now the White House and the political fortunes of the nation and, by extension, the world could ride on the ability of the Colorado GOP to hold the state for the GOP presidential candidate.

This is what Reagan meant when he said that character is built by a thousand little decisions made every day when nobody is watching and nobody is holding you accountable. The future fortunes of political parties and nations, to say nothing of families and individuals and eventually the entire world, ride on the choices of individual men and women, especially those holding government power, to know and do what is right in the present, even when nobody's watching and even when everybody is watching and it's not popular.