Friday, October 31, 2008

The Dangers of Socialism

Considering history, socialism is dangerous because:

1) It poses extreme danger to freedom of speech, and government sanctioned punishment of dissenters tends to take hold, gradually increasing in severity (dissent includes the ever-broadening category of "hate speech")
2) As a continuation of (1), civil government-controlled media can easily become the only mainstream and even existing means of news
3) In pursuit of "equality", secularization will become pervasive
4) Religious organizations will have to struggle to maintain their existence if they intend to preserve their focused missions
5) Interpretation of the Constitution will become open-ended and subjective, rendering the document obsolete
6) The assumption will become commonplace that we are not created equal by God, but by the civil government
7) The crumbling of America's economic foundations will begin: hard work will no longer be ultimately beneficial, so why work hard?
8) The disarming of responsible Americans will be pushed for "our safety", but guns in the hands of criminals will remain uncontrolled (after all, even now criminals most often acquire and use their arms illegally)
9) Owning private property will become difficult, and there will be a very real possibility of eradication of property ownership
10) The true reign of "choice" will begin, and as a consequence, the genocide of the unborn will increase

In the event of the combination of an Obama presidency and a Democrat-controlled legislative branch, some of these will be nearly immediate, and some will be what voters have swung the door open to welcome in the future. Before supporting Obama, please study history so that we are able to learn from the errors of this unhealthy and troubling political philosophy.

*Informative reading:
Obama's Economic Mythology
David Limbaugh on the problems with socialism
Chuck Norris on why we must vote to protect the unborn

The Dangers of Obama

This article reports that Obama removed from his plane journalists who represent McCain-endorsing newspapers in order to make room for Obama-sympathetic reporters.

Obama is displaying right before our eyes a policy of aggressive viewpoint suppression. In his view, dissent is not tolerated. For evidence of this, look at what happened to Joe the Plumber for simply asking a revealing question (and there are many more examples!). Please realize that this man is threatening freedom of speech itself, and is in most areas far beyond the liberalism we are familiar with as a country. He and his ilk are absolutely toxic for America. I beg you friends, if you are supporting Obama for any reason, please reconsider. Socialism, which almost always comes with a spirit of suppression, is not the answer. Obama's behavior smacks of the beginnings of historic Marxist censorship. Please vote, but vote wisely.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

A Lesson in Grammar for CNN

The McCain/Palin campaign has been using Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment to emphasize the danger in his political philosophy (yes, the "S" word). So, CNN ran a "fact check" on the statement and concluded that the McCain and Palin were being misleading by ignoring the rest of the 5 minute conversation.

Here is a message for CNN's fact-checkers that will improve their precision:

When a subordinate clause is separated from the main clause, the meaning can be significantly altered. An example here is Sarah Palin's now famous quote regarding Iraq: "our leaders are sending them [soldiers] out on a task that is from God." The media excitedly severed this quote from the rest of the statement: "pray that our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God." Palin was not showcasing a crusader's spirit! Rather, she was exhorting a church congregation to pray that God's will be done.

However, an independent clause such as Obama's statement, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody" is just that, independent. It stands alone. The larger context does nothing to alter the meaning of this statement, as it is a statement of a redistributive philosophy of taxation. (For inquiring or doubting minds, here is the original conversation.)

So CNN, let's review:
Subordinate clause- a part of a sentence or statement that is dependent on the other part of the sentence or statement.
Independent clause- A complete sentence or statement that is able to stand alone.

Thank you fact-checkers for yet another example of the importance of grammar.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Understanding Freedom and Equality

A fascinating forthcoming documentary by the Acton Institute attempts to shed light on a commonly misunderstood and often denied truth: secularism alone could not have shaped the concepts of freedom and equality as we now understand them. I do not know very much about this organization (yet), but the trailer appears to represent a greatly needed and powerful film.

The trailer, short clips, and more information can be found here.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Enough is Enough

An inexcusable justification for Obama support is rapidly gaining popularity. Those who adopt this commonly championed yet false case that abortion is no more important than other issues must be set straight, especially during a political campaign as monumental as this. Hip, trendy, and deliberately contra-Religious Right, the argument typically takes this form:

Abortion is a single-issue.
Single-issue politics is naive and wrong.
Therefore we should not vote based upon the abortion issue.

A severe problem for this argument lies in its assumption that single-issue politics is indeed wrong. Though combating slavery was unpopular in his day, William Wilberforce chose to devote the majority of his time, energy, and resources to passionately and successfully fight this one issue. Hardly a human being would claim that Wilberforce was politically irresponsible due to his functionally single-issue politics. Single-issue politics is not necessarily wrong; in fact, as Wilberforce's moral victory displayed, it can be a wise course of action. Therefore, this argument fails.

Moreover, it has become popular in the young evangelical community to "dethrone" the fight against abortion by trying to broaden what it means to be pro-life. For instance, many will claim that if a voter is primarily or even strongly concerned with the issue of abortion, then she can't possibly be equally concerned for the poor and the downtrodden. If she isn't equally concerned with the poor and the downtrodden, then she is not fully pro-life. Such uncritical disciples of the new left will sometimes adjust the argument by replacing the “poor and downtrodden” with "war". This anti-war version claims that those who oppose abortion but fail to oppose war are not fully pro-life. Both of these claims are untenable for these (but not only these) reasons:

1) Abortion is active murder of the defenseless and innocent. The poor and downtrodden should receive concern, sympathy and aid (from the private sector, I might add), but no one I am aware of has condoned their murder.

2) Abortion is active murder of the defenseless and innocent. War by contrast is intended to protect as many of the innocent as possible by solemnly fighting an enemy whose defining quality is hardly innocence.

Ergo, an issue hierarchy absolutely exists. Again, all issues do not carry equal weight. Despite the reality that a strong anti-abortion stance has recently fallen out of favor, such a position is still of utmost importance. To use Doug Groothuis’s coined term, fetus fatigue is no excuse for such an egregious lapse in judgement.

Barack Obama needs to be exposed for his tenaciously held, heinous positions, namely his fight and defeat of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his outspoken desire to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. While Christians should absolutely pursue civility in disagreement, morally atrocious policies such as these must be vigorously and unapologetically fought.

So, should McCain and Palin use the offensive strategy of negative campaigning? Absolutely. Isn’t this mudslinging? If the charges are true and pertinent, absolutely not. After all, sometimes it takes a pit bull to deal with a snake.

Please read Marjorie Dannenfelser's article on the need for the "politics of contrast."