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.

Early Debate Returns: Bad for McCain

I watched the debate tonight with growing frustration at John McCain's failure to attack Obama squarely on his confiscatory economic policies. I've finally come to the conclusion that John McCain is unable (or unwilling) to promote the kind of conservative economic message that I think much of this country is wanting to hear.  Instead, he's splitting hairs with Barack Obama on the economy -- and losing in the process. I'm always interested in the views of Steven Hayes at the Weekly Standard -- he's a smart, reasonable writer who I read frequently.  His review of the debate is that Obama won. Here's part of what he had to say:

"John McCain had a very strong debate tonight. It’s too bad for him that it came on a night when Barack Obama was nearly flawless.

The debate began with questions on the economy and for thirty minutes Obama answered those questions with the kind of substance that I suspect anxious voters wanted to hear and with exactly the right tone – empathic, aggravated and determined. Most important, he spoke to voters in their own language. In his first answer, in response to a question about things the government can do to help average Americans through these tough economic times, Obama spoke of a $400,000 junket that AIG executives took after the government bailed them out. “Treasury should get that money back,” he said, “and those executives should be fired.” Sure, a little demagoguery. But it’s exactly the kind of story – in a debate that included back-and-forth accusations and lots of statistics – that voters will remember and talk about tomorrow with their neighbors.

McCain took that first question and he turned immediately to energy. “Americans are angry, they’re upset and they’re a little fearful. And it’s our job to fix the problem. Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it’s got to do with energy independence.  It didn’t work. Two months ago, when gas prices were nearing $5 and the cost of oil dominated the headlines, the McCain campaign deftly used anxieties about energy as a proxy for anxieties about the economy. So when McCain proposed to lift the ban on offshore drilling, voters responded positively and the polling reflected their enthusiasm."

This is what I was afraid of: McCain being unable to clearly articulate why Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress is a danger to our economy. The reflexive return of McCain and Palin to the energy issue is a comfort zone and understandable -- but not good enough in this economy. McCain seems unable to explain to the American people that Obama's tax policies and his liberal record will be a poison pill to an economy that needs liquidity. It needs low taxes to fuel growth -- something that simply isn't possible with Obama's tax-and-spend plan.

Even worse, McCain's populist instincts are taking him down the wrong path. Rather than returning to a free-market solution to what should be a free market problem, his instinct is to increase regulation and government control -- exactly what Obama and the Democrats want to do. He again misses a chance at differentiation. Here's Hayes again:

"But while energy issues remain important and cannot be separated from the broader economic picture, the convulsions in world markets over the past two weeks and the need for a $700 billion federal bailout have rendered worries about gas prices and energy independence to second-tier status. It’s not that these issues don’t matter, it’s just that they matter less now than they did over the summer. He later broadened his answer to include spending, tax cuts and his jaw-dropping plan to have the federal government buy up “the bad home loan mortgages in America” to “let people make those payments and stay in their homes.” So bigger government is bad, quasi-governmental entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “ignited” the current economic crisis, too much government spending is leaving us broke and we want the U.S. Treasury to renegotiate individual home mortgages? Seriously? No thanks."

No thanks is right. The correct and powerful answer here is to reignite the economy through lower taxes to stimulate jobs and growth so people can pay their mortgages -- NOT to have the government take over that role. This mess in the housing market is partly an issue of personal behavior -- not simply predatory lending. I, for one, am not interested in my tax dollars going to bail out people who made bad decisions. I think many Americans would agree with that. Unfortunately, McCain's instincts don't lead him down that path. He's still in the "Wall Street greed" mode.

I hate to throw in the towel here, but...it is now clear that the issues that many conservatives have with McCain are legitimate and real. That despite his great personal story, his maverick personality often betrays a message that would greatly appeal to a great swath of America. He's actually give people less of a choice by co-opting the position of Obama on so many issues.

My guess is that the polls are not going to be good for McCain after this performance tonight. In a debate where he really needed to help himself, I'm afraid he's come up short.

We'll see.

The Howard Beal election

It's hard to turn on the TV these days. The news and images from Washington are like a train wreck. The height of hypocrisy: the crooks who made this mess posturing for a bailout on the backs of the taxpayer... looking stern and serious while they sit in gilded offices paid for by the investment banks and mortgage firms -- those that provided them with cheap loans to their poor constituents, while profiting handsomely from complex, opaque financial instruments that no one understands. While Washington slept the market ran wild, fueled by impossibly cheap money and overabundant credit. The Wall Street Journal ran a picture of J.P. Morgan the other day. He looks like a banker: stern, serious, practical. I wonder if he'd have given people $400,000 stated income loans; not a piece of paper to prove their earning or their ability to pay it back. That's what we did in the hyper-fueled lending world of Freddie and Fannie. You need to buy a house. Can't afford it? No problem, we'll cover you. Can you imagine J.P. Morgan doing anything so stupid?

And now comes the final indignity: the "bail out". The House yesterday decided not to pass a $700 billion bailout bill. They did so to prove that we are still a free market. They did so to save their reelection chances. They did so to protest the Bush Administration and their total mishandling of this crisis from start to finish. Whatever the reason: it failed. And rightly so.Does anyone really think that the Bush, Paulson or Bernanke have any idea what is really going on here? Fortune Magazine reported last week that the $700 billion number that Paulson chose has no analysis behind it:

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Wow. How comforting is that? We know that markets operate on psychology, and that the large number is designed to provide confidence in the market that the government has a big enough solution to take care of the problem. I understand that.

But I also understand something that George W. Bush and his team have never understood: this is also a political issue during a presidential election. The Bush Administration remains totally tone deaf to the concerns of the American people. While the $700 billion number may calm financial markets, it has shocked, dismayed and infuriated the American taxpayer.

Hello? Is anyone out there? Does George Bush really want Barack Obama to become president? It sure looks that way.

In fact, Bush's handling of this issue looks a lot like the war in Iraq before General Petraeus went to Baghdad. It looks incompetent, poorly planned and poorly executed. It looks just like the mess that Gens. Casey and Abizaid got us into, with American soldiers dying daily amid violence and chaos on the television. Total mis-management. The American people lost confidence in Donald Rumsfeld in 2004. And what did the President do? He held his course, kept Rummy on and took a beating in the 2006 midterm elections. Bush was shocked to take such a shellacking. He didn't understand the level of discontent among the voters then -- and he doesn't understand it now. Americans in vast numbers are angry at Washington. Mad as hell, as Howard Beale famously yelled out the window in the movie Network. And they aren't going to take it anymore.

[photopress:180px_Network12_1.jpg,full,pp_image]

Who will pay the ultimate price for this debacle? John McCain. He's been swallowed whole by this mess and his campaign will never recover. Yes, he miscalculated -- the whole "suspending his campaign" gambit backfired. Frankly, his instincts on the bailout were wrong; his behavior showed him as a legislator. A compromiser. Not as an executive who had to make a tough call in a crisis. He temporized and vacillated.

In fact, McCain missed a golden opportunity: He could have taken the momentum and initiative away from Obama and come out forcefully against the bailout from the beginning. He could have stood up in the debate and said:

I'm against this because I don't believe in taxpayers footing the bill for what is essentially a $700 billion entitlement program. Yes, I know the situation is serious and that we need to provide relief to the credit markets. But there is a better, less-intrusive way to do this: change the "market-based" accounting rules so that firms can revalue their portfolios to something that reflects their true intrinsic value. Provide loans and guarantees that the firms will pay interest on, etc. etc. etc.

But McCain didn't do that. He didn't see the opportunity for bold action and decisive decision-making. He could have put Obama in a corner. And with public opinion running 2:1 against the bailout, the polls would have been on his side.

In the end, this is the kind of crisis that either makes or breaks a candidate. The odds were against McCain from the beginning, but his handling of this issue has fallen short. He was dealt a bad hand by Bush and his bumbling lieutenants; in this case, running against Bush would have been smart for McCain. But it was the kind of "game changing" opportunity that comes about only once in a campaign. If you seize it, you win. If you don't, you lose.

So far, McCain hasn't seized it, and unless Palin pulls out a miracle against Biden and McCain can rally in the last two debates, the Republicans will lose on November 4.

Look for substance in debates

The first of three presidential debates has been completed, with the sole vice-presidential debate scheduled for Thursday evening. Evaluation of these quadrennial events tends to be based on the most superficial matters, such as whether a knockout blow or a major gaffe was made, the presidential "look" was evident, expectations were met, positive or negative impressions were given, and so on. Instead, what we should be looking for in a president is evidence of solid character and sound public policy. Some voters are still undecided, in part because neither of those decisive criteria matter to them as much as superficial appearances. However that may be, the country depends on wisdom and virtue, not charisma or demagoguery.

Of course, character and policy, wisdom and virtue, are only distinguishable in theory; in real persons one finds some combination of these. Still, a man of character is more likely to favor sound policy than a man of bad character. A virtuous man is more likely to be wise than a vicious man.

When it comes to character, Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, has a distinct advantage. For not only did he demonstrate his courage as a prisoner of war at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists, but he has never feared to buck political pressure from inside as well as outside of his political party. I will not maintain that he has always been right–only that he would rather be right than win an election.

A year ago McCain’s campaign for the Republican nomination seemed doomed. In fact, his own fate was inextricably tied to our country’s. During nearly four years of America’s attempts to crush extremists of various stripes following the stunning victory over the forces of the late Saddam Hussein, McCain was almost alone among members of Congress in calling for an increase in troops and a change in strategy. His judgment and his candidacy were vindicated when Gen Petraeus’ "surge" virtually chased the enemy from Iraq and gave peace and stability a chance.

That same courage was on display at last Friday’s presidential debate with Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He justifiably reminded everyone of his lonely crusade to save America’s policy in Iraq and criticized his opponent for his failure to admit that he was wrong in dismissing the surge, not to mention opposing the removal of Saddam Hussein’s despotic regime, with its history of deploying weapons of mass destruction.

McCain is not the skillful rhetorician that Obama is, for that latter’s nimble verbal footwork gave the impression that his quarrel with America’s decision to topple Hussein was merely because we had "taken our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan. But it is a known fact that Obama could not win the Democratic nomination without appeasing the far left that is animated by a combination of Bush hatred and hostility to American interests.

When Obama declares that the next president, preferably himself, will need to repair the damage done to America’s reputation abroad caused by the allegedly disastrous policies of George Bush, he is merely repeating a less obvious version of the "global test" that sank failed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry‘s chances four years ago. It was no accident that Sen. Obama went abroad a few months ago to "wow" Europeans and try to pressure the Iraqi government to delay any permanent agreements with the United States until Jan. 20, 2009.

Democrats are reputed to have an "edge" when the country is in economic crisis, as it is now. Obama only made an appearance with McCain at a meeting of the President and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson with congressional leaders to hammer out some sort of relief package for the nation’s credit. But McCain wisely rescued the House Republicans’ alternative private insurance plan from being ignored by Democrats, who preferred to stick taxpayers with the full cost of the proposed bailout and cover up their up-to-the-eyeballs involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We are in a credit crisis not because of inadequate federal regulation of private investment companies but because federal law encouraged easy credit and two quasi-governmental behemoths made a mockery out of the lending business by enticing people who could not afford even to make a down payment on a home, to sign papers for purchase anyway.

In future debates one hopes that voters will look past the atmospherics and listen carefully for evidence of what we need in a president, not for what merely pleases us.

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.