Saturday, June 07, 2008

Radical takeover of the Democratic party?

Reason for concern?

This is not a political Blog. But the Gospel has political implications. And so, I merely ask the question: Is there reason to believe that the Democratic Party is being taken over by radicals? According to Warner Todd Huston, in an article which may be found here, Senator Barack Obama "actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the 'New Party' and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison)...The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials - most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party."

Senator Obama supports sex education in kindergarten read here and infanticide read here. Additionally, according to Stanley Kurtz, writing for National Review Online, "Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the largest radical group in America." Why is this so troubling? Because ACORN's philosophy is premised upon anti-capitalist redistributionism. Read more here.

Senator Obama has also said that Christ's Sermon on the Mount supports same-sex unions, read here. He has described unborn children as a "punishment" (punishment from whom? does he mean a curse?) read here. But most disturbingly, the Senator has described religious belief as some sort of "crutch," read here.

Should a Christian vote for Senator Obama? What do you think?

"...numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.

Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society. Indeed, possession of the greatest possible supply of things that serve the advantages of this life is considered of such great importance that the higher goods of man, liberty not excepted, must take a secondary place and even be sacrificed to the demands of the most efficient production of goods. This damage to human dignity, undergone in the "socialized" process of production, will be easily offset, they say, by the abundance of socially produced goods which will pour out in profusion to individuals to be used freely at their pleasure for comforts and cultural development. Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.[55]

If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. " (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order, Nos. 117-120).


Anonymous said...

I realized Obama was radical but didn't realize just how far left he was. Thanks for that Paul. I would encourage all Christians who read this post not to vote for the man. He is so far left he is dangerous in my opinion.

Michael Cole said...

Senator Obama is is extremely radical on many subjects. That he would condone partial-birth abortion (infanticide) is most revealing. For it tells us just how committed he is to the propaganda of the Planned Parenthood hate machine.

Abortion is big "business." And the Senator from Illinois isn't about to modify his radicalism on the question of abortion or bite the hands of financial supporters such as Planned Parenthood or NARAL.

When one considers the extent of his radicalism across the spectrum of political issues, one quickly sees that Senator Obama poses a threat to the traditional family and its values as well as the sound economic principles which made this nation so great and could again.

Anonymous said...

I read where Barack Obama's father was a radical, militant Muslim. If this is true, it is yet another reason I would have reservations about his candidacy. But just his stance on abortion is enough for me to vote for Senator McCain. When you factor in his support for the homosexual agenda and other radical causes, I cannot, as a Catholic, even entertain the thought of voting for him.

Site Meter