26 October 2008

His positions are evil. . .

Many of my friends from my days as a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue have been asking me lately how I can resist supporting an Obama presidency.

My answer--much to their horror--has been simple: "Because I used to be a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue, and I understand the party-line of the movement:

-- destroy the notion of objective truth with appeals to diversity, difference, and multi-cultism;
-- eliminate the possibility of rational discourse by elevating the affective above the rational;
-- convert all public political discourse into emotive appeals to race, gender, class, and sexuality;
-- define "freedom" as "freedom from constraint" and never as "freedom to do what is right;"
-- attack all secular opposition as "oppressive, self-centered, and fearful;"
-- attack all religious opposition as "superstitious, fundamentalist, and ignorant;"
-- use "white liberal guilt" to attack economic growth and prosperity;
-- feed over-educated narcissism with the prospect of ruling, finally, and ruling more than the meager resources of an English/women's studies department at a state university."

Why do I oppose Obama? Simple. His political positions are evil. This man believes that it is morally acceptable to kill children. He believes that it is morally permissible to attempt to kill a child in the womb, fail, and then leave the child to die once delivered alive. This man believes that all Americans should participate in his evil by being forced to pay for the genocide of abortion with federal tax dollars. That the overwhelming majority of children murdered in the womb are black seems not to concern him at all. He has promised to eliminate all democratically enacted laws against the murder of children by signed the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" if elected. This will enshrine the Supreme Court's 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade into federal law.

That the MSM has chosen again and again to ignore, obfuscate, distort, and lie about his connections to domestic terrorists, international Marxists, local communists in Chicago, and his involvement with other radical left-wing groups like the vote-stealing ACORN cadre only adds to my deep suspicison and unease. Though these are more strictly political concerns and do not rise to the level of his promotion of child murder, they are nonetheless deeply distrubing to this American citizen.

Now, before you pop off in the comboxes about Catholic priests not being political, let me say this: at no time during my solemn profession as a Dominican friar in 2003 or during my priestly ordination in 2005 did I EVER renounce my U.S. citizenship; my right to free speech; my right to the free practice of my religion; or the free expression of my opinions in a public milieu. Nor should you take my opposition to the evil of the possibility of an Obama presidency as an endorsement of a John McCain presidency.

If you want me to support Obama you will need to demonstrate to me one thing and one thing only: how does the actual murder of 1.7 million children every year in the U.S. (and the inevitable increase in that number if B.O. is elected) outweigh any possible good that B.O. might do as a Marxist-feminist chief executive officer of the U.S.

All I can say at this point is: thank you God for constitutional term limits.

36 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Father, for not checking your citizenship OR your plan-spokenness at the door when you took your vows!

    I followed the link from Catholic Dads and look forward to reading your blog regularly.

    Now I need to go and find some place to translate that title (I didn't have any mean old nuns to teach me Latin.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Father, that was straight to the point and concise, it is what needs to be heard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bravo Father, well said.

    I look forward to reading your blog regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daddio:

    It means, "Lord, give me that water."

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fact that this nation is on the cusp of electing a radically pro-abortion black president who calls his potential grandchildren "punishments" and that says it is above his "pay grade" to determine when a life deserves the protection of the American constitution is the bitter fruit of Margaret Sanger's eugenicist Planned Parenthood movement ...

    God have mercy on us all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brilliant post. Let's hope Comrade Obama doesn't make those term limits obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you want me to support Obama you will need to demonstrate to me one thing and one thing only: how does the actual murder of 1.7 million children every year in the U.S. (and the inevitable increase in that number if B.O. is elected) outweigh any possible good that B.O. might do as a Marxist-feminist chief executive officer of the U.S.

    I had a friend try to tell me that voting for Obama is more pro-life. Something about how Republican policies keep children from clean water and food. When I challenged her with a reasonable and charitable response, she responded by referring to me as a religious ideologue incapable of independent thought.

    Thanks for the great post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you and God bless you for speaking your mind, Father!

    ReplyDelete
  13. actually I'm proud to be a "religious ideologue incapale of independent thought"...or at least to be seen as one.

    My orders come from One much more important and powerful and persuasive that B.O. and that's a plain fact, take it how you like.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Father i find it wrong that the IRS will stop tax benefits for churches that preach against politicians who support criminal actions like abortions and gay marraige. It is the duty of the church to warn its congregations about right and wrong, this is a duty which the church cannot abdicate irrespective of what the IRS does or does not do. Are the Catholics in America ready to support their church if the church does its duty or are they just fair weather Catholics.
    Secondly is not the members of the Catholic church citizens of USA, then how can citizens of America be denied its right to freedom of speech. Or does the freedom of speech apply only to liberals and not to orthodox Christians? Lastly does the ACLU really care about the Freedom of speech for everyone or only certain groups?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Amen, Father! As a foreigner, I'll vote with prayer and fasting that God withholds His hand from chastising us for our iniquity in allowing the 50 million "little" murders.

    God, have mercy on us and deliver us from BO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Father. Great post; I'm somehow who strives to be moderate, but I am fearful to the bones about this election! We're headed into painful country.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fr. Philip,

    In light of our previous conversation, I'm going to steer quite clear of the abortion issue. You're right that those discussions go nowhere, and no hard feelings on either side, I hope.

    So - on the question of economics. Marxist? Really? I just don't see solid reasons for the hype; the "evidence" seems to exist in those funky chain emails that say Obama is an "arab terrorist" and "mexicans have conquered L.A." or whatever.

    So far as I can see, Sen. Obama is a third-way social democrat -- the same as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, etc. Until you hear him calling for the nationalization of ALL industry, don't even call him a socialist, let alone a Marxist: it's just plain inaccurate. The *absolute* furthest one could go is "market socialist," but I think even that makes Obama sound a lot more radical than he is. Actually his candidacy has been quite banal and less progressive than the folks at DailyKos or The Nation would like. I can assure you. I read those publications.

    On the "party platform" up there - well, I really see the replacement of reason with The Affective to be a salient feature of McCain rallies, too! The cries of "he's an Arab!" or "He's a communist!" don't sound much like measured, rational discourse, and the "terrorist" jargon appeals to brute fear. That's not a latte-sipping elitist thing to say. When you call an American Senator a terrorist, you're appealing to extreme, deep-seated xenophobia - no other way to slice it.

    And finally, ACORN employees have gathered fraudulent voter REGISTRATIONS, not VOTES. There is a difference. The latter (fraudulent votes) are almost NEVER seen due to the fact that they constitute a felony. Having "Mickey Mouse" registered in Nevada does not an election win.

    Thoughts?

    Robert H.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous11:04 PM

    Thank God priests can't run for office. Nor are they supposed to pontificate for the masses.

    They are supposed to serve the masses; not colonize their minds and tell them how to vote.

    You can actually get in hot water for that.

    You may hear from Washington sooner than you expect!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon.,

    My phone works.

    The irony here, of course, is that several bishops and churches have already been sued for violating this IRS rule...yes, IRS rule, not a federal law. It is entirely possible that the courts could rule the this regulation unconstitutional, freeing churches from this restraint of free speech and allowing us to keep our tax exempt status! Wouldn't it be a hoot if these liberal fascists accomplished for us with their thuggery what we haven't been able to accomplish with lobbying!?

    Fr. Philip

    ReplyDelete
  20. Robert, no hard feelings, of course! As I have said many times on this blog, tone is impossible to convey in comboxes...

    To your points:

    Generally, Marxism is more than an economic policy these days. I doubt very seriously that Marx himself would recognize most American Marxist: over-educated, upper-middle class, entitled/privileged, academics, etc. So, when I use "Marxist" I'm not talking about "in the street hard-working union guys with legit labor disputes." I'm talking about effete intellectuals who resent their lack of real power in the world despite what they consider their obvious brilliance. Their efforts on behalf of the "working man" are usually little more than excuses for social engineering and the cultural experimentation of the perpetually bored. So, OK, Obama may not be a Marxist in the strict economic sense, but he is most certainly a Marxist in the sense I've described above: governmental ideological over-reaching; wanting to use the courts and congress to guarantee equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities, etc.

    My comment about the replacement of rational discourse with emotivism is about the broader trend of postmodernism rather than a comment on the atmosphere of campaign rallies. No doubt rallies get out of hand...on both sides. What I am talking about is the slow replacement of deliberative discourse in our civic life with the rhetoric of victimhood and identity politics. What seems important now in politics is who has been wronged as a group and who needs to write them a check. Even in academic discourse, we have seen a decline in rational discourse in favor of merely political posturing.

    I'll grant you the ACORN distinction as a technical point. It seems like a minor enough distinction given the overall corruption in the whole process. I'm confused though about the necessity of registering voters you do not intend to have vote. Is it just to get paid for registering them...fake or not? Or is there a move here to inflate Democratic registration numbers from some other nefarious purpose?

    Fr. Philip, OP

    ReplyDelete
  21. As I mentioned elsewhere, It's fun watching people cry, "We'll pull your tax-exempt status! That'll shut you up!" No it won't. At worst, loss of exemption will just remove the gag order. At best, Fr. Philips' poetic-justice scenario happens.

    Truth--you can try to tax it, but you can't make it go away.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There's no such thing as 3rd-way. It's still Socialism. True, not strictly in the classic sense, but in the contemporary sense in that the market is acknowledged but its participants are still supposed to get a "license" from the state to participate, either implicitly or explicitly in the form of regulations. Moreover, the fruits of such participation are not considered property of the participants, but they're allowed to keep some of it, as though the goal from the beginning had been to provide for the state. THIS is contemporary, 21st century Socialism.

    The fact of the matter is that 19th century Marxist praxis has been adapted over the decades to what we see now not only in China, but also in Europe and in America under the guise of liberalism, or Socialism on the rocks. And such contemporary transformations originated early in the 20th century by Lenin (1920's) himself and particularly by Gramsci (1940's), who led the concept of cultural Marxism by the infiltration of institutions, particularly universities and entertainment. Gramsci's is the de facto contemporary Marxism.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fr. Philip,

    Marxism has always been a sport of the elite. Marx himself was an academic, along with his fellow Engels. Almost all Marxist revolutionaries were members of the elite, from Trotsky and Lenin, though Mao and Gramsci, to Pol Pot and Castro.

    The fact of the matter is that only in the Capitalist economies can academics exist. But with too much time in their hands and no ability to produce wealth, they still dream about having power and lording over people. That's why Marxism has always found its leaders among the inteligentzia, be it in the 19th century, be it in the 21th century.

    ReplyDelete
  24. BTW, if anyone doubts that Europe's leaders are Socialists, how about their party's affiliation with the Socialist International, such as the British Labour, the German SPD, the Spanish Worker's Party, France's Socialists, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well does anyone not believe that Socialism is wrong?
    Our Lady at Fatima said that Russia would spread her ERRORs across the world which is Socialism.
    Most of Europe if not all of Europe including Canada has adopted it.
    Lastly I suspect that USA this election will also adopt Socialism.
    We need to Listen to Our Lady and say a lot of Rosaries to make reparation for our sins

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fr. Philip,

    Looks to me like you're redefining Marxism to mean "the kind of people on the left that I don't like" [which may or may not be all of them - so far I'm looking in vain for exceptions :)]. That's well within your prerogative, but you should let us know beforehand. It's true that Marxism has moved from an actual party system to a theoretical philosophy in most countries. But that does not change the fact that its tenets (dialectical materialism, communal ownership of the means of production, abolition of gov't) remain the same.

    Augustine: I beg to differ. Socialism, per se, is a system under which all industry is nationalized. A "social democracy," or third-way system, nationalizes SOME of the industry. A true free market would then nationalize NONE. The difference between the GOP and the Dems in this country is that the latter want to do a little more "mixing." This is not the same thing as socialism. We could call it a "regulated free market." EVERYONE has one of these, so if you want to find a pure free market I suggest you start looking for an uninhabited island.

    I've written a paper over Gramsci and hegemony, by the bye. And just incidentally, you know who also advocates his methods? Rush Limbaugh. Get his book, I promise it's there.

    Smiley: are you sure there weren't other "errors" in Soviet Russia, such as the Gulag, enforced famines, or the suppression of religion? Also, Soviet government would properly be called Totalitarian, not just socialist. If the Blessed Virgin were really that worried about socialism wouldn't she have warned against France and Sweden as well?

    Robert H.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pithily put. Thank you, Fr. Phillip! No wonder you're in an order of preachers. I think you'll appreciate this exchange, also.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Robert,

    You're being distracted by the classic definition of Socialism. Real-world Socialism is nothing but what Gramsci promoted, the 21st century Socialism, who, as someone who wrote about him knows, did not defend the nationalization of enterprise. Quite the contrary, he defined the "new" Socialism as a cultural one, what you call "3rd way
    .

    BTW, just what do you think that the DNC wants to mix, if not Socialism? The redistribution of wealth cannot be dismissed as a fundamental trace of Socialism. Marx even went to detail how to achieve this, emphasizing the progressive tax system that the DNC cherishes.

    Marx regarded Socialism as a transitory step towards Communism. Why do you insist on not acknowledging that the 3rd way is nothing but a step towards Socialism? This is exactly what Gramsci proposed, not the revolutionary transition as Lenin favored.

    And I think that you're being cynical to suggest that Rush is doing the same as the liberals did. It's not the means that are wrong, but the goals. After all, what do you think that Jesus meant when He told us to be the salt of the earth? So, let's be salt and displace the evil of Socialism from our institutions.

    Finally, you cannot deny that the USSR has always been behind Europe's Socialist parties. Mary knows better than you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fr. Phillip, looks to me like you are redefining what the fastest ship in the galaxy is to mean, "a ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". That's well within your prerogative, but you should let us know beforehand. A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship's speed when he made this claim. Instead, he was referring to the shorter route he was able to travel by skirting the nearby Maw black hole cluster, thus making the run in under the standard distance, he may have indirectly referred to the speed of his ship here because to be able to go closer to black hole and still be able to get out of its gravitational pull you will need to be able to go faster. However, parsec relates to time in that a shorter distance equals a shorter time at the same speed. By moving closer to the black holes, Solo managed to cut the distance down to about 11.5 parsecs. The smuggler, BoShek, actually beat Solo's record in his ship, Infinity, but without cargo to weigh him down.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Augustine:

    I really don't think I am as confused as you think. But perhaps we are talking about the same thing in different ways. I'm not trying to say that if you were to make a Venn diagram of socialism and the US Democratic party, there would be no overlap. But I think you'd be wrong to say that there is therefore no overlap in the Republican party, seeing that they are the ones who proposed the "Let's Nationalize the Banks" Bailout Package, essentially contradicting everything they liked to claim they stood for (and, amazingly, still do claim to stand for).

    I, along with most economists, believe that hard-line libertarians who believe we can handle massive economies of scale in nations with populations in the hundreds of millions with a pure free-market are simply delusional.

    That said, I realize there are other economists - especially those of the Chicago school - who disagree with me, and that's fine. I will take care to point out that Chicago economists were enthused about peddling their theories to superthug Augusto Pinochet, but despite that little fly in the ointment you will just not hear me calling them "evil."

    That, Augustine, is the difference I see between your arguments and mine. It's not that we disagree that there is some socialism in Europe, some (though less) in America, and that there could be more "mixing" of the economy in the future (under either president - it's just that the GOP focuses on the mammoth military-industrial complex, not social services). But for some reason, you assert that socialism is EVIL and fail to back that claim up.

    To me, economic systems are not inherently moral or immoral. That's like trying to say that taking the highway to work is good but surface streets are evil. No. If the highway provokes you to road-rage, then your actions on the highway are evil. Same goes for economic systems: if socialists expand the state and use it to abolish religion, they've used an amoral system for evil ends. Same for a capitalist mogul who screws the poor and pays himself $100b a year. I'm deeply suspicious of Capitalism, but I'm not trying to tell you that you're making the Baby Jesus cry because you love Milton Friedmann.

    And just to clear this up: the Soviet Union propped up the Warsaw Pact governments, which were varying degrees of socialist-communist (NOT the same thing! Even if Marx thought one led to another, it hasn't in France, Sweden, Canada, etc. etc.) but the NATO countries in Western Europe under socialists like Mitterand were obviously not funded or supported by the Soviets. They were in NATO for crying out loud.

    I'm quite certain that Mary knows better on me than everything. But I'm dubious that she has a desperate stake in whether the government owns x or y power company or bank, and unless you've been told as much from on high, you oughtn't use religious figures to cudgel me into the right wing of the Republican party. There just isn't a correlation, and I really thought the idea that there is was dying. Guess I was wrong.

    Robert H.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Robert,

    I think that we agree that, in different degrees, both the DNC and the GOP are Socialists, although I never said that the GOP wasn't. I decry the bail out as socialization of losses.

    I do believe in the Austrian school that even a trillion $ economy can be left unmanaged. As a matter of fact, the larger it is, the less possible it is to manage it. I recommend "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises, the Economics Nobel Prize winner Friedrich von Hayek's mentor, for the details.

    Socialism is EVIL because of its disrespect for private property. Disappropriating a worker from the fruits of his work a sin that cries to Heaven, whether he wears a blue collar or a white collar. Mind you, this is NOT the same as taxation to pay for the costs of services provided by the state, but things like "spreading the wealth."

    But you insist in ignoring that Gramsci redefined Socialism as a cultural movement. And wherever Socialism got a hand in government, Judeo-Christian values have suffered, even in blatantly Catholic countries. In Latin America, where abortion has been a crime until recently has seen many Socialist governments legalize abortion in the last 5 years. Look no further than Mexico for a taste of the EVIL of Socialism. Look at Spain and Portugal how Socialist governments corrupt the culture by imposing against the will of the people the EVIL of gay "marriage" and abortion, respectively. You cannot ignore that cultural and economic Socialisms are one and same thing, the same ideology applied to different spheres of human action.

    Please, reread my post above. The USSR propped up Socialist PARTIES throughout Europe by financing them and providing assistance. It's a known fact that the major leftist European parties took part of the Comintern congresses, from the British Labour to the Swedish SPD through the French Socialist Party. Don't take my word for it, just research the proceedings of the Comintern congresses.

    So, yes, Our Lady saw not only the head of international Socialism in Russia, but also its tentacles in Sweden, Canada and the US.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ScottW.

    thanks!! that was a GREAT bit of satire! love it!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Timothy11:33 AM

    You know you're dealing with academics when you get great lines like this one:

    "I've written a paper over Gramsci and hegemony, by the bye."

    Wow, a whole paper. Gosh. What the heck do the rest of us paper-less fools know?

    How silly of the rest of us, all we do is go to work each day, many of us in our own businesses through which we have created wealth and jobs for many around us, and we sit and wonder why the full one-third or more of our incomes that goes to the government always seems to fund at best inefficient programs that never work or schools where no one learns, and at worst, things like the horrifying destruction of innocent lives in the womb or policies designed to redefine marriage and continue to weaken families... Who are we to question the continued slide of our nation into unchecked government power and socialism?

    We haven't written any papers, after all. What do we know.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I was having a joke at vanitasqoheleth's expense, and I probably should not have done that. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete