Tags: President Clinton, Barack Obama, hope
and change, Great Uniter, Great Recession, stimulus package, BP Oil Spill, deep water
offshore drilling, Judge Feldman, New World Order, Ronald Reagan, Joe the Plumber, share
the wealth, spead the wealth around, General Motors, nationalize banks, Obamacare, Health
Care Nuclear Option, Czars, Judge Vinson, Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual
marriage, The National Defense Authorization Act, using military on US Citizens, Judge
Andrew Napolitano, drones spying on Americans, Martin Luther King, Communism, Karl Marx,
Communist Maifesto, Babylon
Obama's election coincided with the
worst free wall of the Stock Market in American history. Yet during the years of George W.
Bush, who likewise had to fight off a recession early in his tenure due the President
Clinton's fiscal policies and the stock market crash following 911, the unemployment rate
bottomed out at 4.4% in the spring of 2007. When Obama took office the unemployment rate
that he inherited from Bush stood at 7.8%. Obama's "Change" apparently made it
worse as the unemployment rate spiraled up from there. At the high point, the unemployment
rate during Obama's presidency was a whopping 10%. As detailed in the Westmore Times on
March 22, 2012: "Unfortunately, a large part of the decline since the 10.0% peak
reached earlier in his term is the result of people who have given up looking for work. In
fact, the percentage of working-age Americans currently unemployed stands at 36.3%, the
highest rate of his administration and the worst since the 1980s."
According to Columnist Peter Ferrara as
posted on May 32, 2012: "This latest recession started in December, 2007. Since the
Great Depression 75 years ago, recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months,
with the longest previously lasting 16 months, not counting this latest spooky downturn.
"The National Bureau of Economic
Research, the recognized scorekeeper of when recessions start and end, declared this
latest recession over in June, 2009, which would make it the longest recession since the
Great Depression. But the historical precedent in America is the deeper the recession the
stronger the recovery, as the American economy accelerates to return to its long term
trendline. Based on that precedent, we should be in the third year of a raging recovery
boom by now. But instead we have suffered the worst economic recovery from a recession
since the Great Depression.
"Unemployment actually rose after
June, 2009, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December,
2010. Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment above
8% since the Great Depression, under President Obama's public policy malpractice."
The fact is that, other than in election
years, Obama desired the high unemployment rate because it increased the welfare state.
This was why he continued to fight to extend Federal Unemployment Benefits which continued
to keep people dependent upon the government rather than working. With that in mind Chad
Stafko wrote on 9-12-11, "We have seen under this president an expanding number of
citizens who are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their very
livelihood, as the data show that the U.S. has become an ever-growing welfare state under
Obama.
"Government dependence, which is
defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at
a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are
reliant on food stamps. In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion)
was double what it was in 2007. . ."
It's no wonder that the "Great
Recession" lingered. Obama went as far as to do things to hurt the economy including
putting a moratorium on deep well drilling in the Gulf after a BP oil spill and refusing
to allow the building of the Keystone Pipeline.
As detailed by Jill Adams of the
National Review on June 8, 2011, "For months, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar used the
Deepwater Horizon tragedy as the single excuse for his agency’s failure to issue
permits for new oil exploration in the Gulf. But a new House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee report tells a different story: It’s all about political will.
"Ignoring key evidence and input
from hundreds of energy-exploration experts, Salazar suspended drilling on 33 deepwater
wells and banned new drilling plans in the Gulf of Mexico. He claimed that the moratorium
had the backing of a panel of experts that the Obama administration had put together
— but the House committee’s report points to an 'important White House official
[who] changed the safety report [and] created the misleading appearance of scientific peer
review.'
"The committee’s report also
noted the administration’s reckless disregard for the 400,000 Gulf Coast workers
either directly or indirectly employed by the oil and gas industry. Under Secretary of
Commerce Rebecca Blank testified that the administration never once studied the economic
impact the moratorium would have on the Gulf Coast economy and on oil production."
". . . The administration’s de
facto moratorium on oil exploration in the Gulf has resulted in a complete reversal from
where we were one year ago: Domestic production was then at an all-time high for the sixth
year in a row; U.S. reliance on the Middle East was decreasing as oil imports from the
region declined to less than 18 percent; and Americans were paying $2.86 per gallon.
While watching gas prices go up over
$4.00 a gallon Adams continued, "The Obama-Salazar 'let them drive hybrids' mentality
is indicative of the disconnect between the White House and the public. There are 250
million cars in this country that don’t run on electricity from solar or wind; they
run on oil. And because this president won’t let us drill for oil in the Gulf,
there’s less of it — and American drivers are paying the price at the pump.
"Safety is no longer an issue.
Oil-rig operators have already demonstrated that they can contain a BP-sized blowout. Yet
the administration has issued just one permit to drill in the Gulf of Mexico in the last
12 months. And one year later, the Interior Department is still mulling applications to
resume previously approved, previously permitted, and previously drilled wells."
". . .If the president truly wants
to cut our dependence on foreign oil, reduce gas prices, and create jobs, he could direct
Interior Secretary Salazar to clear the backlog of oil-exploration permit applications in
the Gulf and expedite plans going forward.
"But the president doesn’t
want that. And that’s the point."
According to the New York Times on
6-22-10, "In a 22-page opinion, the judge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States
District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May
order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water.
"Citing potential economic harm to
businesses and workers, Judge Feldman wrote that the Obama administration had failed to
justify the need for such 'a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium” on
deep-water oil and gas drilling.
“'The blanket moratorium, with no
parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully
knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally
present an imminent danger,' wrote Judge Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald
Reagan."
Yet to demonstrate his contempt for the
rule of law, after Judge Feldman ordered the Administration to put a halt to the
moratorium on deep well drilling in the Gulf, Obama stepped over the constitutional line
and ignored the judge.
These moves not only denied Americans
jobs when they were desperately needed, but stood in the way of independence from Mideast
Oil. Thus Obama's actions were direct assaults on our national security.
It was obvious that it was Obama's
intent to use the recession and environmentalism to destroy America's system of
capitalism. He sought to create a whole New World Order.
Obama showed his communist stripes in
October during the 2008 election. That is when he spoke to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (Joe
the Plumber), of suburban Toledo, Ohio. Joe was complaining how tax hikes would penalize
him for growing his plumbing business . . . otherwise being punished for success because
Obama was intending to raise taxes for higher incomes. Obama responded "I do believe
that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but frankly also been lucky,
um, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there
whose, things are slow and she can barely make the rent . . . I think when you spread
the wealth around it's good for everybody." Otherwise, according to Obama's
version of social justice those who are making more should pay more in taxes to support
those who are making less. This is pure class warfare founded upon Communism.
Throughout his presidency Obama made
sure to keep class warfare alive. And so, according to Lartry Kudlow of the National
Review on 2-13-12 soon after his State of the Union speech, "If you shake out the
Obama budget in terms of bold headlines, it’s really a class-warfare, tax-the-rich
budget. Layer upon layer of tax hikes are piled on successful investors, small-business
owners, and corporations."
Charles Gasper of the New York Post
agreed on 1-26-12: "Three years after the Hope and Change president took office, Hope
turns out to mean high taxes and lots of regulations, and Change consists of celebrating
the government’s takeover of General Motors and belittling technological progress
that destroys some jobs even as it creates others. The Great Uniter is all about class
warfare.
"Such was President Obama’s
latest State of the Union Address."
Indeed Obama used the unfortunate
economy to nationalize private businesses, including General Motors; in order to extend
the reach of government farther than it has ever gone before. According to the Washington
Post on April 28, 2009, "The partial nationalization proposal (was) a last-ditch
effort developed by GM and the Obama administration's auto task force to keep the leading U.S.
carmaker out of bankruptcy". Early in 2009 Obama attempted a backdoor enterprise to
nationalize banks through "equity conversion." The supposed idea was to save
banks that would not have the available capital to ride out future credit loses by
shifting money around. According to the Wall Street Journal on April 21, 2009: ". . . wholesale
equity conversion would mean the government owns a larger share of more banks and is more
entangled than ever in their operations. Giving Barney Frank more voting power is more
likely to induce panic than restore confidence. Simply look at the reluctance of some
banks -- notably J.P. Morgan Chase -- to participate in Mr. Geithner's private-public
toxic asset sale plan. The plan is rigged so taxpayers assume nearly all the downside
risk, but the banks still don't want to play lest Congress they become even more subject
to political whim."
During the early years of his presidency
a vast majority of America was opposed to health care reform. Nonetheless Obama went
directly against the will of the people to do what Clinton failed to do. He ramrodded a
health care bill through a weak Senate for the express purpose of destroying the entire
health insurance industry and nationalizing that part of the economy. The bill was slated
to insure health insurance for 95% of the population. Therefore, 95% of the American
people would be directly dependent upon the federal government under his plan and thus
controlled by the US government as well.
According to the Guardian on 3-22-10;
"Barack Obama last night forced his bitterly fought healthcare reform bill through
Congress, bringing near-universal coverage to Americans and delivering the first major
triumph of his presidency.
"After days of maneuvering by the
Democratic party leadership to bring dissident party legislators on board and an
impassioned plea on Saturday by Obama, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy
Pelosi, confirmed that the votes were in the bag.
"'Tonight, at a time when the
pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics,"
Obama said during a late-night appearance at the White House.
"'This legislation will not fix
everything that ails our healthcare system, but it moves us decisively in the right
direction. This is what change looks like.'"
"Despite not going as far as many
liberals had hoped, the bill will take the US close to universal healthcare coverage and
Obama will have achieved the goal that eluded US presidents dating back to Theodore
Roosevelt a century ago."
Indeed Obama "forced" the
healthcare law through Congress. When the Democrats in the Senate didn't have enough votes
to overcome a Republican filibuster, it appeared that the health care law was dead in the
water. But then there was the so-called "nuclear option."
As indicated by Brian Darling of the
Heritage Foundry on February 24, 2010, "The President’s new version of
Obamacare, and his method of passing it, are not popular with the American people. Dubbed
the Health Care Nuclear Option, this tactic will only further anger the American by
sidetracking the filibuster in the Senate and creating an even more highly charged
partisan atmosphere in Congress. The content of Obamacare, and the strategies being
employed to pass it, violates one of our nation’s core first principles: the consent
of the governed. Our Republic is not a democracy where bare 51 vote majorities rule.
Throughout our nation’s history most major legislative changes in Washington have
historically been bipartisan and President Obama’s effort clearly falls short of that
tradition.
". . . Americans treasure the idea
that our Republic was set up so that the power of the federal government is derived from
the consent of the people. The extraordinary state power to pass legislation that puts the
government in control of more private health care decisions should only be done with the
clear consent of the American people.
". . . There is no consent of the
governed for Obamacare. As a matter of fact, there is a consensus that the
President’s top down approach to reforming health care has the explicit opposition of
the American people."
But the consent of the people was not on
Obama's mind. Rather, it was intention use the health care law to bring the American
populace under his direct control. To make sure of that, he built the law around an
unconstitutional mandate that forces everyone in America to purchase health insurance. If
that were to stand, then the precedence would be set for the government to force people to
buy what it wants them to buy. It sounds a lot like the circumstances surrounding the Mark
of the Beast to me.
And he causeth all, the small and the
great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a
mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; and that no man should be able to buy or
to sell, save he that hath the mark, [even] the name of the beast or the number of his
name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast;
for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six. (Rev
13: 16-18)
Also, Obama knew if the government can
control people's health, then it can control them. In order to kick off the Communist
movement in America, the Communist's first president, Franklin Roosevelt, initiated Social
Security. Then another Communist, Lyndon Johnson got his New Society off the ground and
instituted Medicare. But nationalizing the entire health care industry was the dream of
Communist America since the Roosevelt's New Deal. Obama accomplished that.
In addition Obama expanded his powers by
taking the appointment of Czars to a new level. While sidestepping the approval Congress
he appointed a host of powerful men and women bent on controlling the actions of
Americans. "As of July 20, 2009," wrote Glenn Beck, "The Brainroom counts
32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that
have identified the official in question as a czar. In addition, President Obama has said
that he will create the position of cyber czar, and there have been media reports that
there could be a health insurance czar and a copyright czar. When and if those positions
are filled, that would bring the total to 35."
Every one of these Czars was appointed
without congressional approval. As observed by Mike Bauer on 5-16-11; "Since his
election as President, Barack Obama has appointed approximately three-dozen so-called
'czars' to manage various governmental responsibilities. These czars have been described
as 'super aides' who work across agency lines to push the President’s agenda. CBS
News says they 'report directly to Mr. Obama and have the power to shape national policy
on their subject area.' The lines defining the boundaries of the czars’ power are
unclear, however, even to many in Congress.
"In most cases there are no
confirmation hearings to evaluate the qualifications of the appointed czars, thus they are
largely insulated from accountability to Congress. Critics say that such an arrangement
threatens to increase the power of the President (who appoints these czars) beyond what is
constitutionally mandated. Even the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd warned that the czar
system 'can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances.'”
These Czars were affiliated with ultra
left wing activist groups (otherwise Communists). Likewise they were Obama donors.
It was obvious that it was Obama's
intention to undermine the authority of Congress in order to transform it into a gathering
of puppets. As I sit here on June 1, 2012 I see that the approval rating of Congress,
according to Fox News, stands at a meager 14.6%. This is a shell of the former 58% ratings
that Congress got while Newt Gingrigh was ramming through his "Contract With
America." Yet, in spite of the fact that Obama had totally botch economic recovery
his approval rating still hangs in there at 47.4 %. It amazed me that Obama has an
approval rating at all until I realized that America may be making the same determinations
as those citizens of ancient Rome. That the beast has become too big for the Republic to
effectively govern.
Therefore, in order to weaken Congress
Obama went on the attack with his usual gridlock mantra. According to Fox News on January
28, 2012, “President Obama, fresh from a five-state tour following his State of the
Union address, is calling for government reforms to ease gridlock and bar members of
Congress from profiting from their position.
“. . . The president reiterated his
calls for government reform made in Tuesday's address, saying he wants the Senate to pass
a rule that requires a yes-or-no vote for judicial and public service nominations after 90
days. Many of the nominees, he said, carry bipartisan support but get held up in Congress
for political reasons.
“. . . Obama said he also wants
Congress to pass legislation to ban insider trading by lawmakers and prohibit lawmakers
from owning securities in companies that have business before their committees.
“In addition, the president is
seeking to prohibit people who ’bundle’ campaign contributions from other donors
for members of Congress from lobbying Congress. Obama urged the public to contact their
member of Congress and tell them ‘that it's time to end the gridlock and start
tackling the issues that really matter.’"
This was nothing other than the arm of
Octavian demanding that the Senate do his bidding. Like Caesar himself Obama was demanding
that Congress pass rules to limit its ability to make independent decisions. As his
comments clearly testified he wanted the Senate rules to be rigged so that he could ramrod
his liberal judges and programs through. He wanted to control what legislators could
invest in and limit the money they could raise to attain office. What would he want next?
President for life?
There could be no doubt that Obama
desired to attain the status of Caesar. Therefore he expanded the role of the presidency
into a dictatorship when he ignored the rulings of judges and the laws of Congress. We
have already described how he ignored a judge's order regarding his Gulf deep well
drilling moratorium. Then, as posted by William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor Cornell
Law School, on January 31, 2011, "Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District
of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is
unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then
found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the
entire law be deemed unconstitutional.
"Judge Vinson found that there was
no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid
was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law
survived."
In other words, the judge's ruling
assured that Obamacare must not be implemented until the appeal process had taken the
matter to the Supreme Court. Obama simply ignored the judge's ruling and implemented his
coveted law anyway.
Then Obama defied Congress when he
refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. As it turned out, in spite of his
professions during the 2008 campaign, as revealed during the campaign of 2012 on May 9,
2012, Obama was actually in favor of homosexual marriage. So, to Obama, when the law went
against his personal Communist agenda, he would simply ignore it.
On March 16, 2012 it was revealed that
Obama was taking the Patriot Act to new levels. According to the New York Times "For
more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have
warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the
Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public — or even others in
Congress — knew about it.
"On Thursday, two of those senators
—Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado — went further. They said a
top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as
crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained."
The Oval added; "'As we see it,
there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and
what the government secretly claim the law allows,' said a letter to the Justice
Department by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo."
But perhaps the most frightening
development of all was the fact that Obama determined he would use the military against US
citizens. As reported in Forbes on January 2, 2012, "The National Defense
Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight
the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism
suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out
domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
"'The fact that I support this bill
as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,' the president said in a
statement.'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain
provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected
terrorists.'
"Worse, the NDAA authorizes the
military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided
in the bill, once again without trial.
"There is some controversy on this
point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the
law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow
the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.
“'Obama’s signing statement
seems to suggest he already believes he has the authority to indefinitely detain
Americans—he just never intends to use it,' Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones."
Yea, right.
And worse yet, during the first week of
June, 2012, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News began to report of the Obama
Administrations intent of using drones (un-manned aircraft) for the purpose of spying on
American citizens. In his article Where is the Outrage? He penned on June 7, 2012,
"The photos that the drones will take
may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the
"recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental
function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal
government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly
acknowledge that it is deploying them 'to collect information about U.S. persons.'
"It gets worse. If the military personnel see
something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or 'military
commander' for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that
intrigues them. And, any 'incidentally acquired information' can be retained or turned
over to local law enforcement. What's next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the
U.S.?
"The quoted phrases above are extracted from a
now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama's Secretary of the Air Force on
April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as 'balancing … obtaining
intelligence information. . . and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution. . .' Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and
note the peculiar use of the word 'balancing.'
"When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect
the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to
restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That's why we have
a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the
liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that's why the Air Force memo has its
priorities reversed -- intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second -- and the
mechanism of reconciling the two -- balancing them -- constitutionally incorrect. . . .
"The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated
relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias --
a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of
individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty,
not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in
God's image, and governments are temporary and based on force.
"Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones -- some
as small as golf balls -- to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent
to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on
Americans in America? I don't know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are
complaining.
"If we remain silent when our popularly elected
government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it
to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow,
I doubt my father's generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a
totalitarian government to flourish here.
"Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov.
Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?"
* * *
Communism is the religion of the
antichrist. As detailed by the Reverend Martin Luther King, "First, Communism is
based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist
theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a
philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of
the imagination, religion is a product of fear and ignorance, and the church is an
invention of the rulers to control the masses. Moreover, Communism, like humanism,
thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and
usher in a new society--
"Cold atheism wrapped in the
garments of materialism, Communism provides no place for God or Christ.
"At the center of the Christian
faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence
of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator,
sustainer, and conserver of values. In opposition to Communism's atheistic materialism,
Christianity posits a theistic idealism. Reality cannot be explained by matter in motion
or the push and pull of economic forces. Christianity affirms that at the heart of reality
is a Heart, a loving Father who works through history for the salvation of his children.
Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God.
Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.
"Second, Communism is based on
ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to
the most expedient methods for dealing with class war. Communism exploits the dreadful
philosophy that the end justifies the means. It enunciates movingly the theory of a
classless society, but alas! Its methods for achieving this noble end are all too often
ignoble. Lying, violence, murder, and torture are considered to be justifiable means to
achieve the millennial end. Is this an unfair indictment? Listen to the words of Lenin,
the real tactician of Communist theory: 'We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit,
lawbreaking, withholding and concealing truth.' Modem history has known many tortuous
nights and horror-filled days because his followers have taken this statement seriously.
"In contrast to the ethical
relativism of Communism, Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and
affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral
principles that are fixed and immutable. The law of love as an imperative is the norm for
all of man's actions. Furthermore, Christianity at its best refuses to live by a
philosophy of ends justifying means. Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends,
because the means represent the-ideal-in-the-making and the-end-in-progress. Immoral means
cannot bring moral ends, for the ends are preexistent in the means.
"Third, Communism attributes
ultimate value to the state. Man is made for the state and not the state for man. One may
object, saying that in Communist theory the state is an 'interim reality,' which will
'wither away' when the classless society emerges. True--in theory; but it is also true
that, while it lasts, the state is the end. Man is a means to that end. Man has no
inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. Under
such a system, the fountain of freedom runs dry. Restricted are man's liberties of press
and assembly, his freedom to vote, and his freedom to listen and to read. Art, religion,
education, music, and science come under the gripping yoke of government control. Man must
be a dutiful servant to the omnipotent state.
"All of this is contrary, not only
to the Christian doctrine of God, but also to the Christian estimate of man. Christianity
insists that man is an end because he is a child of God, made in God's image. Man is more
than a producing animal guided by economic forces; he is a being of spirit, crowned with
glory and honor, endowed with the gift of freedom. The ultimate weakness of Communism is
that it robs man of that quality which makes him man. Man, says Paul Tillich, is man
because he is free. This freedom is expressed through man's capacity to deliberate,
decide, and respond. Under Communism, the individual soul is shackled by the chains of
conformity; his spirit is bound by the manacles of party allegiance. He is stripped of
both conscience and reason. The trouble with Communism is that it has neither a theology
nor a Christology; therefore it emerges with a mixed-up anthropology. Confused about God,
it is also confused about man. In spite of its glowing talk about the welfare of the
masses, Communism's methods and philosophy strip man of his dignity and worth, leaving him
as little more than a depersonalized cog in the ever-turning wheel of the state.
"Clearly, then, all of this is out
of harmony with the Christian view of things. We must not fool ourselves. These systems of
thought are too contradictory to be reconciled; they represent diametrically opposed ways
of looking at the world and of transforming it."
In order to usurp the Christian teaching
of Heaven, Communism seeks to create a Utopian society here on earth. This is worldwide
system of no morality, no families, no classes and no rules. This is the
"heaven" of the Communist system. Thus King proclaimed: "The theory, though
surely not the practice, of Communism challenges us to be more concerned about social
justice. With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, Communism arose as a protest
against the injustices and indignities inflicted upon the underprivileged. The Communist
Manifesto was written by men aflame with a passion for social justice. Karl Marx, born of
Jewish parents who both came from rabbinic stock, and trained, as he must have been, in
the Hebrew Scriptures, could never forget the words of Amos: 'Let judgment roll down as
waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.' Marx's parents adopted Christianity when he
was a child of six, thus adding to the Old Testament heritage that of the New. In spite of
his later atheism and antiecclesiasticism, Marx could not quite forget Jesus' concern for
'the least of these.' In his writings, he champions the cause of the poor, the exploited,
and the disinherited
"Communism in theory emphasizes a
classless society. Although the world knows from sad experience that Communism has created
new classes and a new lexicon of injustice, in its theoretical formulation it envisages a
world society transcending the superficialities of race and color, class and caste.
Membership in the Communist party theoretically is not determined by the color of a man's
skin or the quality of blood in his veins."
Communists admit that their false heaven
will not be achieved until they have enforced their humanistic creed world wide. Communism
was devised as an atheist assault on Christianity for the purpose of destroying it.
Communism under a dictator is the
government of the antichrist. Obama had already shown his Communist/dictatorial stripes.
All he needed was a second term when he would be no longer accountable to the electorate.
About the Author
Click Here to purchase the E-book edition for only 99 cents!
 
Blog Index
 
WIGTUNE HOME
About the Author
Don Wigton
is a graduate of the prestigious music department at CSULB where he studied under Frank
Pooler, lyricist of Merry Christmas Darling, and sang in Pooler’s world renown
University Choir alongside Karen and Richard Carpenter. During this time Don was also the
lead composer of the band, Clovis Putney, that won the celebrated Hollywood Battle of the
Bands. After giving his life to God, Don began attending Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa to
study under some of the most prominent early Maranatha! musicians. Subsequently he toured
the Western United States with Jedidiah in association with Myrrh Records.
Eventually
Don served as a pastor at Calvary Chapel Bakersfield to witness thousands of salvations
through that ministry. As the music/concert director, Don worked for seven years with most
major Christian artist of that time while producing evangelical concerts attended by
thousands of young people seeking after God. Don’s Calvary Chapel Praise Choir
released the album Let All Who Hath Breath Praise the Lord on the Maranatha! label.
The next
years of Don’s life were spent as the praise leader of First Baptist Church in Bakersfield
during a time of unprecedented church renewal. Don teamed with the leadership to
successfully meld the old with the new through a period of tremendous church growth.
During this exciting time, Don’s praise team, Selah, produced the CD Stop and
Think About It.
Today Don is
the leading force behind Wigtune Company. This
webbased project located at www.praisesong.net has provided several million downloads of
Don’s music and hymn arrangements to tens of thousands of Christian organizations
throughout the world. More music can be found at Don's Southern
Cross Band website at www.socrossband.com.
The book Holy
Wars represents Don’s most recent effort to bless the church with biblical
instruction and direction in praise and worship. This heartfelt volume is an offering not
only to God’s people, but also to God Himself.
Connect With Don Online
Facebook - Southern Cross
Band
Facebook - Wigtune Company
Wigtune Blog
Smashwords |
was formed as a service to the body of Christ to encourage scriptural
worship. To accomplish this goal Wigtune Company offers free contemporary Christian praise
and worship music, contemporary Christian rock and hymn mp3 and chart material along with
a free on-line worship study book for personal devotions, Bible study groups, Sunday
schools, pastors, music ministers and ministry training. In order to bridge the gap
between the old and the new the worship study book gives solid theological and
historical support to the use of traditional Christian hymn-singing in conjunction with
praise chorus singing. 
Vision Statement 
Wigtune Story 
Check out this powerful Southern Cross song! 
