"I once asked if you were willing to sell all you have, and give to the poor and follow me. This is what I meant: If you had no investment in anything in this world, you could teach the poor where their treasure is. The poor are merely those who have invested wrongly, and they are poor indeed! And because they are in need, it is given to you to help them, since you are among them. Consider how perfectly your lesson would be learned, if you were unwilling to SHARE their poverty." ~ Jesus Christ

It goes without saying that poor choices lead to a sense of poverty. But what if alternatives from among which to choose are limited? This is possible in one instance only: when government force has prevented the learning and adjustments which people naturally make in an otherwise free market.

GOVERNMENTS CAUSE POVERTY. Throughout history when people have been left alone to freely produce and trade, untaxed and unregulated, unlegislated and ungoverned ... they eventually bring about prosperity for everyone (see: The Spiritual Basis of Free Markets).

Marxists have it backwards. Unwilling to recognize that governments are the cause of poverty, they believe that governments can somehow be the solution. Marxists always want to increase government involvement in people's lives, which inevitably causes shortages of goods and services, and more suffering than ever.

Confusing cause and solution, well-meaning priests in the last century who wanted to help eliminate poverty turned to Marxism and invented what became known as "Liberation Theology," an imagined religious justification for the use of government force to "liberate" the poor and so-called "oppressed."

Riding a fad of Liberation Theology, South and Central American Marxist revolutionaries have been able to gain power and wreck all kinds of havoc by pretending to be in rapport with Christianity. The Sandinistas brought Nicaragua to its knees. Hugo Chavez is right now destroying the prosperity of Venezuela.

In recent decades, Liberation Theology found its way to black inner-city America and into the minds of young street organizers like Barack Obama. Whereas Hillary Clinton absorbed her leftist nonsense from her 1960s anti-war groupie days but has never been religiously committed to Marxism, Barack Obama's religion requires him to see only one way: people are always lacking something, and only the government can provide (the exact opposite of real Christianity).

Like Hugo Chavez and Sandinista leader (and Obama supporter) Daniel Ortega, Obama cannot afford to talk much about his plans. He knows he can get himself elected merely with inspirational oratory, merely on a "white kight to the rescue" projected image. But scratch the surface and you find he has promised around $800 billion in new government programs.

Lawrence Kudlow, an economic advisor and author of the blog Kudlow's Money Politics, writes of Obama's plans: "Tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth. Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages." Obama's Gloomy Big-Government Vision

So what's new? It's been tried many times ... always with the same results. Worshippers of government never learn.

Conservatives need to get busy fighting for all they are worth not for McCain, but against Obama. They need to expose Obama for who he really is in clear and ominous warnings which the public cannot fail to understand. And they need to give up at least one golf day a week to actively work in some way to take back the Republican Party, the one political hope for serious opposition to the spreading Marxist theology. (See: Republican Liberty Revolution)


Technorati tags: , , ,
, , , , ,,,, ,

3 comments
  1. cube February 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM  

    Obama and Hillary are both cut from the same Saul Alinsky cloth. Their differences lie in their delivery, not in their policies.

  2. Deviant One February 25, 2008 at 12:12 PM  

    Interesting analysis, thanks for the info! I'm interested to see where all this goes, since whoever controls America controls most of the world.

  3. mike April 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM  

    Who is going to blog the whistle on Clinton's Marxism? Many of her (and the Democratic Party's) stances and policies smell amazingly like Marxism. Instead of Christians (and even secular conservatives) pushing the state to take care of social issues, perhaps the church should stand up and do one of the big things God has called us to do (mentioned in both the Old and New Covenants): take care of the widows and orphans (i.e. those who need help).