Obama Administration Sounds A Lot Like FDR Administration

At this link I point out how many Marxists are serving in the Marxist Obama administration.

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=observations_on_the_regnant_follies&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

It seems that we can add another one we failed to mention earlier. Recently White House communications director Anita Dunn informed us that one of her favorite political philosophers was Chairman Mao Tse Tung.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/glenn_beck/

LOL … you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Can’t you just envision Anita curling up to a cozy fire with Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book?”

Yep … if you wanted to light up Anita’s arousal quotient all you had to do was whisper a little Mao in her ear. The one that would really get Anita in the mood was,

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

This is not the first time an American Presidential administration has been Marxist. During the Roosevelt administration the White House was crawling with Marxists. One was a gent named Rex Tugwell. Before the days when the current fellow travelers can be instantly exposed by Youtube, Tugwell wrote prolifically about his disdain for capitalism. In his book, “American Economic Life” Tugwell wrote that the Soviet Union’s

“worst enemies are being forced to admit that the system appears to be able to produce goods in greater quantities than the old one and to spread such prosperity as there is over wider areas of the population.’

Tugwell believed that Soviet central planning enabled the Soviets to plan and to carry out their industrial operations in accordance with a completely thought out program.” Tugwell wrote that “the available evidence as to the success of the scheme seems to indicate clearly enough that it (communism) works.”

Now the reason I mention Rex Tugwell in the context of the current White House Director Anita Dunn’s admiration for Chairman Mao is to point out the common thread of admiration between FDR’s “Brain Trust” and Obama’s Czars and staff. Despite the utter failure of Marxism the Obama administration is fascinated with this ideology. Retrospectively speaking we can say that at least FDR’s “Brain Trust” could not be convicted of knowing better. They were true believers and honestly believed that the Soviet project could remake the world. The Obama people live on the other side of the 20th century and ought to be able to see the the graves of 100 million people slaughtered by Marxists, but it seems that to true believers the belief system is indefeasible.

Shop-keeping

Friends and Readers,

Apologies for the slow posting the past few days. I managed to run headlong in to a pretty good flu bug and am now just recovering.

As it is, I am headed out to Maine for holiday and so my posting will continue to be hit and miss for a couple weeks. God willing, I will return refreshed and ready to hit the ground running with more posts from the catbird seat.

Tomorrow I will have a Classis meeting in Akron, Ohio and then it is on to points East. Classis meetings never fail to raise interesting observations into the way our church culture is reasoning. Your prayers are coveted.

Thanks for your readership and friendship.

p.s. — To those I have promised responses to, I promise I will get to them before I return. Mr. V. I’m thinking especially of you

Deliver Us Obama … Hear Our Prayer Obama

At about the 1:30 portion of this video-tape you will find a responsive reading begun. Soon thereafter you will hear the congregation repeating regularly,

“Deliver us Obama … Hear our prayer Obama

How many of these types of video-tapes need to show up before we realize that there are large numbers of people who see Obama as the Great Leader?

The Things We See

“It was not too many years ago that when a man misbehaved badly his neighbors and co-workers were able to discern it and exert pressure for reform. It did not always work, but it kept many of us better than we might have been. This sort of social pressure is far removed from the police state. It is, rather, the only alternative to a police state.”

Dr. Clyde Wilson
From Union to Empire — pg. 235-236

This quote hit me right between the eyes as I was reading it. You see recently one of my family members was privy to a highly placed community member hitting (I would almost say “beating”) his wife. The witnessing of it was quite accidental and completely unintentional. My family member came to me asking what do to. I was speechless. I didn’t have an answer. In Wilson’s terms I did discern it but I had and have no ability to exert pressure for reform. Having spoken to this person before about a different touchy matter, I’m confident that if I spoke to the person in question again I would be blown off just as I was on the previous matter.

I hurt for the wife. No woman should be subjected to that kind of abuse.

Concerning Perversion

“(In regards to AIDS) the priorities of the public health establishment, who after all are bureaucrats as well as ‘scientists,’ would appear to be (1) to protect the ‘community’ of deviants from public outrage and discrimination; (2) to pursue heroic curative and preventive measures to save the deviant ‘community’; and (3) to protect the decent public, insofar as it does not conflict with Priority 1….

We are all sinners and fall short of perfection, and we are enjoined to stand ready to extend our hand to our repentant fellow creatures. But I do not detect very much repentance, as opposed to regret and resentment, among the representatives of the ‘lifestyle’ that has put us all in danger. In fact in heeding the admonition not to stigmatize (this ‘lifestyle’), we are all actually throwing up obstacles to repentance.”

Dr. Clyde Wilson
From Union To Empire — pp. 234-235

1.) The disease of AIDS and the ‘lifestyle’ that is associated with it has become a politically protected disease and ‘lifestyle.’ This in turn has made it a culturally protected disease and ‘lifestyle.’ Culturally, it is considered bad form to stigmatize perverted behavior. Indeed, one who does attempt to put a stigma upon perversion is more often than not the person who becomes stigmatized by our culture.

2.) The pursuit of the legitimacy for homosexual marriage is really just a cover for the pursuit of the legitimacy of all homosexuality. Homosexuals aren’t really interested in marriage. The whole idea of monogamy is completely counter intuitive to the desire for the complete removal of all sexual norms that so many in the pervert community desire. What Homosexual marriage achieves is the not the normalizing of monogamous homosexuality but rather the normalizing of homosexuality in all its expressions. When homosexuals get the right to marriage then just as unfaithfulness is no big deal for heterosexual marriages so unfaithfulness will be no big deal for homosexual marriages. Homosexuality, in all of its multifaceted expression of perversion will be normalized with the institutionalizing of homosexual marriage.

3.) The necessity to decry the perversion that is homosexuality does not come from a sense of inherent righteousness or superiority from those who decry it but rather from a realization that certain taboos in cultures must be maintained lest individuals in the culture be exposed to things that would not otherwise be exposed to were the taboos to remain strong. Since Wilson is correct in noting that, “we are all sinners,” it must be the case that if public standards of decency are to obtain then it must be sinners, seeking to uphold the standards of Scripture, who are the ones who raise the banner of decency in the face of those who would redefine decency.

4.) We must hold out Christ as the only hope for those who have been wounded by perversion. Christ came to rescue all types of sinners from all types of sin and we must be forward not only in proclaiming God’s hatred of perversion but also His willingness to forgive who sue for peace.

5.) We do perverts no favors by trying to making peace between their perversion and the Christian faith. In many quarters of the Church today there is a mad rush to prove how acceptable the Church can be towards unrepentant perverts. We accept the sinners at the cost of rejecting the Savior. It used to be the case that we would only accept changed sinners but now it is the case that we will only accept a changed Savior. Jesus must change to get over His previous hang up against unrepentant perverts, and if He won’t … well, we can always find a different chap, who is more amenable to these perversions, to hang the “Jesus” name tag on. The new chap wearing the “Jesus” name tag will have the good sense to accept perverts and reject those who reject perverts.