My Blog

Barack Obama’s Church and Liberation Theology

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:43:08 -0700

Senator Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, we have learned, proclaim that they are followers of liberation theology (they call it black liberation theology). It makes perfect sense that Obama would go to such a church. Liberation theology is a radical leftist theology that has adopted Marxist/Socialist principles. Obama is known to be one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate, as his record proves. For instance, Obama believes that partial birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. To find out what this procedure does click here for a diagram of the procedure, which is usually referred to as a D & E procedure. Liberation theology came into being in the mid 1960s in South America and is popular in both Protestant and Roman Catholic circles among the religious left of these two denominations in the United States, Europe and Latin America.

The seminal book on liberation theology is called “Beyond Liberation Theology” by Humberto Belli and Ronald Nash. Most of the information I present here will be summarized from this book. Liberation theology says that the poor are poor because of capitalism and specifically U.S. capitalism. Liberation theology is a Socialist, Marxist philosophy that blames the free market and capitalist countries for the fate of the poor. They believe that government should take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. According to Belli and Nash many early liberation theologians intended to help poor nations in the third world achieve liberation from capitalist imperialism, which supposedly caused and perpetuated their poverty. Belli and Nash state that the fundamental objective of liberation thinkers was Christian action on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. Liberation theology urged eliminating oppression and poverty by replacing the economic and political structures alleged to cause them.

According to George Weigel, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., liberation theology claims that “it is meet and proper for the Roman Catholic church to combat the “sin” of suffering in poor nations by encouraging the establishment of socialist regimes, even through revolution.”

Liberation theology is popular in both Catholic and Protestant faiths and is very popular dogma among the religious left of both denominations. The dominant figures in the U.S. Protestant church are Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. In the Catholic Church the religious orders of the Jesuits, Maryknolls and Paulists are the most closely allied with liberation theology. It should be stated here that the Catholic Church is strictly opposed to liberation theology and those who follow it are considered to be outside of church teaching and close to being heretical. Pope John Paul II was very severe in dealing with the proponents of liberation theology; he considered it a Marxist philosophy anathema to church teaching.

Who were the founders of this movement? Gustavo Gutierrez is the dominant figure in Latin American liberation theology. A Peruvian, Gutierrez was ordained a priest in 1959. In 1971 he published a book called “Theology of Liberation. He has taught at some American universities such as the University of Michigan and Temple University. Rubem Alves was a Brazilian Protestant who published a book called “A Theology of Human Hope.” He eventually lost his faith and now considers himself an atheist. Alves developed the basic tenets of liberation theology: (1) rich nations exploit the poor nations and keep them in as state of dependency; (2) the basic Latin American problem is a class struggle between rich and poor; (3) both Christianity and Marxism aim at “humanization.” (4) God is revealed not in the Bible but in the events of history; (5) God is using Marxist revolutions to achieve his own ends; (6) Christians should join Marxists in fomenting Marxist revolutions. He also made it clear that his peculiar band of Christian Marxism was not opposed to violence. For Alves, political power is an acceptable substitute for the Christian Gospel. In his words, politics becomes “the new Gospel”.

Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian Franciscan priest has been in constant hot water with the Vatican for his heretical views. He has never hesitated to reinterpret or reject essential Christian beliefs in the service of his radical political ideology.

During the 1960s guerilla movements born in nations like Venezuela, Guatemala, and Peru gave Latin leftists two of their greatest heroes: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. In 1965, Camillo Torres, a radicalized priest, called on Christians to embrace revolution and ally themselves with Marxism. A year later, Torres died in a shootout between Marxists guerillas and Colombian soldiers. In Nicaragua, cooperation between Christians and Marxists under the Sandinista rule led many Christians to abandon their religious faith and convert to atheistic communism.

Liberation theology is alive and well today in both Protestant and Catholic churches. A national organization such as the Protestant National Council of Churches is a leftist religious organization very sympathetic to liberation theology. A Catholic theologian, Father Richard McBrien, who teaches theology at Notre Dame University, is clearly a liberation theology enthusiast. In an article in “The Tidings” called “Banned in Boston” he rails against what he calls “ultra- conservatives Catholics” or Catholics who are pro-life in a very negative light and accuses them of having abortion as their only moral issue. I hear this type of talk all the time from my pro-abortion friends. They dismiss us as caring only for the unborn and not for the poor, as if it’s not possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

It is very easy to tell which people are on which side. For the liberation theology supporters their biggest goal is “social justice.” Social justice, as they see it, mainly through political eyes, trumps the Bible or, in Catholic circles, the Magisterium. So, for instance, a liberationist will rail at the social injustice of such things as the minimum wage, the treatment of the illegal immigrant, but totally ignore the dignity of the unborn. They will usually tell a pro-life person that they are a “one issue advocate” and that abortion is not that important in the scheme of things, but social justice is more important. They ignore the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that abortion is an evil that merits excommunication from the church. For them leftist politics has replaced the Bible and the Magisterium as their guide.

According these people, the minimum wage is a dignity of the human person issue, but abortion can be safely ignored. Such Catholics are politicians such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and many others. Just today, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, who said he was a pro-life Democrat (an oxymoron) came out for Barack Obama, even though Obama supports partial birth abortion rights.

So, as I stated at the beginning, it makes perfect sense that Barack Obama belongs to a liberation theology church – he sympathizes with such beliefs and this, very clearly, reflects who this man is. Now, maybe you agree with him; no problem, but know who this man is. He is not who you think he is. He states that he can bring the country together. Well, if you agree with the hard left of this country, maybe he can, but can he bring those of us who do not follow liberation theology, or are to the right of a Barack Obama type together? Not a chance.
__________________________________________
i. Humberto Belli & Ronald Nash, Beyond Liberation Theology, (Baker Book House), 1992
ii. Ibid., p.16

It’s the Economy Stupid

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:49:41 -0700

“It’s the economy stupid” was a catch phrase made popular by the first presidential campaign of former President Clinton in 1992 and has now become a commonly used phrase. I think about this phrase whenever I hear the mainstream media repeat, on a daily basis, that a survey has determined that the most important issue for most people is the economy and it will drive who they will vote for in the presidential general election of November 2008.

Most people are clueless when it comes to economics. Very few people understand how economics works and, specifically, how detached economics is from politics, for the most part. I can’t help but shake my head whenever I hear that by voting for a certain party or simply changing our politicians we will get a better economy. This is so foolish that it’s equivalent to saying that if so and so is elected I will get rich quick. No one would believe such a thing, but many people believe that simply changing a president or a certain politicians will improve their pocket book. The opposite is more possible. A politician who will raise your taxes will definitely affect your pocket book quickly and negatively affect the economy. I am not an economist, but I’ve been a student of economics since my college days and I continue to be. The first thing I want to make clear here is that economics is not driven positively by politics or government intervention. Economics can be damaged by bad government intervention, but it cannot be improved, with very limited exceptions. The free market forces are the best guide. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest American economists of all time was a strict free market economist. No political party has any magic that will drive economics for the better.

I hear many people who are alarmed by recessions. Recessions are part of the economic cycle, just as global warming has existed since time immemorial. Just as the seasons change so does the economy. Recessions are not, necessarily, bad – they are a way for the economy to adjust imbalances so we should not, necessarily, fear them.

I recently attended a seminar given by Liz Ann Sonders of Charles Schwab on the status of the economy. Some of the facts presented were:

• There have been no less than ten full blown recessions since World War II
• The average recession lasts between 7 to 10 months
• Some of the biggest gains have been made by investors during the biggest down periods of the market
• Fear and greed cause most market missteps

At the Q & A time, the first question dealt with the question of do politicians, and specifically the President, have any effect on the economy. The clear and concise answer was no, they do not. Ms. Sonders stated that the government reacts to the economy, not the other way around.

The next thing I want to address is does government intervention do any good? I’m always amazed at how many people tend to think that government intervention is a good thing. Where do they get this notion? The truth is that government intervention usually hurts the market more than it helps it. Case in point: In 1987 the market had the worst crash in history – worse than the crash of 1929 which is the most well known. The DOW lost 23% of its value in one day, or $500 billion. What did the government do? NOTHING. That is right, the government did not interfere to fix it. What happened after this historic crash? We had 20 years of prosperity, interrupted by a couple of short periods in the 1990s of down markets. President Reagan resisted loud calls for intervention and the result was not another Great Depression but the beginning of a decades-long period of prosperity.

Thomas Sowell, a respected economist, writes in his seminal book on economics called Basis Economics, A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy:

“The tragic bungling of economic policy by presidents of both political parties, as well as by officials of the Federal Reserve System, during the Great Depression of the 30s has sobering implications for those who regard government as a force to save the economy from the imperfections of the marketplace. Markets are indeed imperfect. But market failure is not a magic phrase that automatically justifies government intervention, because the government can also fail – or even make things worse. (“Hi. I’m from the Federal Government and I’m here to help you.” Ronald Reagan in his push for less government.)”

Dr. Sowell is very skeptical of any government intervention with good historical reasons. He points to the Great Depression of the 1930s and all the government intervention and further states as follows: “Some economists, including Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, have argued that it was precisely government policies that kept the economy from recovering as quickly as it had before, when left alone.”

The question one needs to ask when it comes to government interference with market forces is: Will the cure work or do more damage? The consensus among economists is that government intervention usually does more damage than it fixes. Remember this before you decide whom to vote for in November.

Why I’m not a Democrat - Reason One of 77

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:58:38 -0800

The other day, my wife and I took the Los Angeles Metro Rail train and traveled to Downtown Los Angeles for a walk in support of the dignity of those who are in need, specifically, the homeless. We delivered some new underwear, which the walk organizers had suggested. The walk started in front of the main Los Angeles Library and took us down 5th Street to the headquarters of the Los Angeles Mission. Along the way we passed some of the most depressed area of Los Angeles’s Skid Row District. Upon arriving at the Mission, we took a quick tour of the facility. I was amazed at how many people were waiting inside and outside for services of one kind or another.

As part of the ceremonies, attended by the media, we heard from the director of the mission describe the services they provide. All the services, I learned later, are funded by voluntary contributions from the public. No government help at all. I’ve sent the Mission money, usually at Thanksgiving or at Christmas time for food. I could not help but be impressed by the services they provide which include, meals, shelter, drug addiction help and spiritual help.

In order to return to the Metro Station at Pershing Square for our return trip home, we had to walk about five blocks - all through Skid Row. I was a little hesitant to do it, but we did. As we were walking back I wondered out loud to my wife, how it could be that Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, receives over $300 million dollars per year from the government in order to kill unborn babies, but an organization such as the Los Angeles Mission which provides such great and needed services to the most needy get absolutely zero from the government. Where is the logic? What does this say about our society?

What does this have to do with why I’m not a Democrat? Plenty. After the start of President Bush’s administration, a proposal was made to provide government funding to some qualified faith-based organizations. The Democrats, for the most part, opposed it. As most of us know, it is these very faith-based organizations, such churches, and church based charities, such as Catholic Charities, Salvation Army and others that provide some of the most effective help to those in need. Why the Democrats would oppose this is very puzzling, after all, it is the Democrats who claim to be for “the little guy.”

So, it is perfectly OK to fund the killing of 1.5 million unborn babies per year but not support faith based organizations that do so much good for us – the living. As talk show host Larry Elder, often states when he’s describing a puzzling situation on his radio show, “is this thing on?” Yet, many people vote Democrat thinking that these are the people who do good for the “little guy.”

Character Counts

Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:02:25 -0800

In September 2007 General David Patraeus testified before Congress on the progress of the troop surge in the Iraq war. One of the most troubling developments related to this event was the traitorous behavior of MoveOn.org. As you may recall, MoveOn.org took out a full page ad in the New York Times which stated “General Patraeus or General Betray Us.” Never, in my life, have I ever seen a more disgraceful display of bad behavior or taste in political life.

First of all, MoveOn.org not only had the gall to print such an ad, it got help from the New York Times in doing it. The Times, it was discovered later, gave MoveOn.org a discount for the ad. The normal price for this type and size of ad should have been $142,000, the Times gave MoveOn.org a 50% discount and charged them only $64,575. Now, I thought that the media was supposed to be neutral and not partisan. It became clear later that the Times actively encouraged these traitors at MoveOn.org to publish such and ad. The media, not a friend of conservatives or Republicans, was disgusted by this action. The New York Times, was even rebuked by it’s own staff in an op-ed piece by Tobin Harshaw, The U.S. Senate voted 72 to 25 to condemn the ad. As disgusting as all of this is, the story gets worse:

All of the Democratic candidates were asked specifically to denounce or distance themselves from this ad. No one would rebuke the ad, let alone denounce it. All the candidates danced around the question and refused to say that the ad was a bad idea.

Why was the ad a very bad idea? General Patreaus is an American military hero who should be praised not condemned for doing, not only his duty, but to perform in an outstanding manner to honor not only the military but his country. To humiliate such a great man in such a manner as did MoveOn.org is not only shameful, but a traitorous act, yet the leading Democratic candidates would not even distance themselves from it. No greater shame has any individual ever brought up themselves as in this case.

Now I ask you, why would you even consider voting for a Democrat for President of the United States who has displayed such lack of character?

Roe v. Wade: A Frontal Assault on the Constitution

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:42:44 -0800

The famous 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion was made with no legal precedent or basis in any United States law. What the court did was raw judicial activism. The court made law – it did not rule on any existing law. Here are some of the bizarre issues that the Court ruled:

The unborn has no legal rights
The unborn is not a person
An unborn may be aborted and killed legally up to birth
We don’t know when life begins
The 14th Amendment implicitly includes a right to abortion

I ask anyone to read the Constitution and the 14th Amendment and see if you can find anything remotely close to a right to an abortion. You cannot find it.

Now you may ask, how do I know this? I am not a lawyer. Well, if you are at all familiar with this case and have done some rudimentary reading, it will be clear very early. You just want to scratch your head. I will provide what legal experts have said about it. All of these experts are not pro-life; they are pro-choice and therefore not sympathetic to the pro-life cause. In an earlier piece on this Blog I pointed out how important judges are in the political process. There is no better decision to point to than Roe v. Wade to explain what happens when judges make law rather than interpret the law. What the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade can only be described as an assault on the U.S. Constitution. Whether you are a conservative or liberal this should trouble you greatly, for the time may come when some decisions will go against you.

Here is what the legal experts (all pro-choice) say about the legal worthiness of Roe v. Wade:

John Hart Ely, another pro-choice legal scholar, wrote in 1973 in the Yale Law Journal that Roe was wrongly decided. Edward Lazarus, a dedicated pro-choicer and former clerk to Roe's author, says Roe was borderline "indefensible." Pro-choice Washington Post writer Benjamin Wittes calls Roe "a lousy decision." Slate columnist William Saletan--who left the Republican Party in 2004 because it was too pro-life--has written that Roe was a sloppy "overreach." Pro-choice Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls Roe "a bad decision."

"Roe was terribly reasoned," said Scott Powe, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "I think there's some requirement under the Constitution that if you cannot explain a decision and its relationship with legal materials, it's not a valid decision."

Powe, who describes himself as "100 percent pro-choice," is far from alone in his criticism of Roe. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have made no secret of their revulsion toward Roe on legal grounds.

But what may have been lost in the often shrill battle over abortion is that even people who believe abortion should be legal are uncomfortable with the arguments in Roe.

Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, asked some of the nation's foremost constitutional law scholars to imagine how they might have written Roe. The results are compiled in "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: America's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision." "Rights are most secure when they are supported by legislative enactment," Balkin told FOXNews.com. He said he believes the right to abortion would have been better settled if it had been articulated through congressional channels.

A case in point, Balkin said, was 1954's Brown v. Board of Education ruling that made racial segregation illegal. The decision was so unpopular at the time — even among anti-segregation legal scholars — that it inspired segregationist lawmakers to mandate congressional hearings for Supreme Court candidates, a process Judge John G. Roberts got to know quite well last week.

You could go on and on how bad this decision was. The bottom line is that this was a bone-headed assault on our great Constitution. This is the direct result of liberal activist judges and why we cannot afford to elect a Democrat to office because an activist judge is all they want and will ever appoint. Don’t take my word for it but look at the judges that they’ve appointed in the past and you will have proof positive.

In a 2005 article by distinguished legal scholar, Steven T. Voight titled “ A Discourse on Roe v. Wade and a Challenge to Law Professors This Fall” states this about the Roe decision: “If any law student or a practitioner of law objectively reads Roe v. Wade, the opinion must surely seem like a proclamation from planet Bizarro World. The opinion is unlike all other legal opinions that law students study in school and that lawyers encounter in practice. It suffers from next to no analysis of legal precedent. It contains no examination of the Constitution or of legislative intent.” To get the entire article go to: www.foundationsoflaw.org/pdf/9-24%20stv%20writing.pdf.

The current Democratic candidates for President, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are all, not only pro-choice (pro-abortion), but are also against any law banning Partial Birth Abortion.