Last week I did quite a bit of traveling. Along the way I gave into an old vice; 
I listened to hours of talk radio. By far the most interesting part of my trip was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s analysis of President Obama’s commencement address at Arizona State University. Limbaugh pretty much dissed the entire speech. I understand this. And yet there were parts of it that I found myself agreeing with. For example, the president used the bully pulpit to attack materialism: “You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long — that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf — that’s how you will measure success.”
Limbaugh, however, sounding much more like Ayn Rand than Jesus, disagreed: 
“Let me sum this sound bite up. Obama’s final message to 
them, the big finale, is anti-individual. Don’t live for yourself. Live for others. What Obama doesn’t understand is that individuals working in their own self-interests are doing exactly what he prescribes. Working in their own self-interest is working for others. It is trying to improve others…Here’s Obama. He’s talking to graduates. He is basically telling them to forget themselves. ‘Don’t invest in your self-interest. Don’t want a nice car. Don’t want a big house. Don’t want wealth. You must define your success by what you do for others.” Which, oh, it sounds so wonderful! But you see…I have a firm belief here. I believe that self-interest, coupled with their freedoms that are enshrined in our founding documents: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think people pursuing self-interest…self interest is not selfishness. Sometimes I don’t even thing there’s anything wrong with selfishness.”
As as Christian, I cannot agree with Limbaugh. 
However, I cannot agree with the president either. Viewed as a whole Obama’s speech was a typical Marxist sermon, the same sort of thing one might have heard from a Bolshevik street orator in the early 1900s. It has been observed that Marxism is really a Christian heresy. I agree. But in saying this I acknowledge that there is just enough truth in the Marxist message to make a powerful impact on those who hear it, and we make a mistake if we underestimate its appeal. I can find few better examples of this than the President’s address.
I applaud the Presidents powerful denunciation of a life lived in the pursuit of self-interest. He was basically asking the same question Jesus asked; “What does it profit a man if he gains the world?” His problem was that he did not finish the question: “and forfeits his soul,” and the fact that he gave the wrong answer to the question; “How shall we then live?”
The President told the graduates Arizona State University that they should live for others. While this answer sounds good it is actually a serious error. I call it, The Error of the Son of Perdition because it was first purposed by Judas Iscariot.
You may recall that shortly before Jesus was crucified, Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazareth whom Jesus raised from the dead, anointed Jesus’ head with a very expensive ointment. When Judas saw this act of devotion he vigorously objected: “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?” Others, following Judas’ lead, called it “a waste.”
Mary was indeed quite extravagant in her display of devotion. 300 denarii is the equivalent of 11 months wages. But interestingly, Jesus rebuked Judas, not Mary. By the way, John tells us that Judas was really not as interested in the poor as his rhetoric might suggest. Rather, he was a thief looking for opportunities to steal other people’s hard earned money. Like many other thieves, Judas wore a mask. His was a mask of compassion for the poor. We should remember this whenever we hear someone using this sort of rhetoric. Not everyone who present himself as a champion of the poor really cares about them. Then as now, men and women like Judas use the poor for their own ends. But now as then, Jesus can see the face behind the mask.
The Error of the Son of Perdition was Judas’ attempt to define Christianity as giving to the poor. Certainly, Jesus had encouraged his disciples to give to the poor, but Judas’ error can be seen in Jesus’ rebuke: “The poor you have with you always, but you do not always have me.”
Some refer to this statement as one of the “hard sayings of Jesus.” They find it difficult because the Error of the Son of Perdition has come to be very popular in our time. The mainline denominations bought into it years ago. They called it, the social gospel. Many evangelicals — striving to win the affection of the world — are buying into it today.
The Error of the Son of Perdition is the heresy that has been proclaimed by Marxism from the beginning. It is the message which was proclaimed by Jeremiah Wright during all those years the Obama’s attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; and it is a message that has found a powerful new voice in the present occupant of the bully pulpit. But Jesus rejected and rebuked this message, endorsing the piety of Mary instead. And for those who have bought into the Error of the Son of Perdition, this is troubling.
Mary’s act of devotion represents a different understanding of the message
of Christ. Mary’s act of devotion suggests that we should live neither for self or the poor, but for Christ. Paul was speaking of this kind of Christianity when he gave his answer the question, how shall be then live: “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all that they who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose on their behalf.”
Certainly Rush is wrong is suggesting that we should live for ourselves, but the President was wrong in suggesting that we should live for others. Both err in leaving God out of the equation. Mary was right. We should live for neither self or others, but for Christ.
Pastor Mark
1 I think you cross the line in what I may refer to as continuous Obama stalking,this time.President Obama is the elected political leader of your country,and that is the prime role in which he may or should be considered by any person in the USA or in the world today.You may dislike his person and politics,but I think unfair remarks about him cross the line of what is proper and acceptable.
2 President Obama is the leader of Moslems,Afro Americans,Italian Americans,Christians,Jews,animists etc.In short,he is the leader of a rainbow nation of different races,faiths,national origins etc.He was reading an address,not as a Pastor or Christian leader,but was addressing college graduates.He was in his address talking,not as a partisan Christian leader,but as a Head of State.How then do you expect his speech to be from an exclusive,partisan standpoint?
3 Yes,I personally agree with you that,as a Christian,I am called upon to die to self,as Paul said,and to live for Christ.Yes I agree that,from the Christian viewpoint,Rush is wrong in believing that we are to live for self only.Indeed,to hold onto such a viewpoint is,in my view, to return to the days of short,nasty and brutish capitalism.The present global capitalist crisis is enough food for thought for any thinking person.
But then Rush does not claim to speak as a Christian.And neither do I occupy the seat of President of the USA.
Tunji
By: tunji on May 19, 2009
at 7:20 am
Pastor Mark
1 Also,do consider this entry at Wikipedia on the subject of Marxism,which you say is the propelling force of President Obama:
‘ Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels…Marxism holds that class struggle is the central theme of all social change…Marxism aims at the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a classless society in which goods are produced for their usefulness not profitability…’.
In order to prove the Marxist persuasion of the President,you need to show :
1 The superficial or deep agreement with and borrowing from the works of Marx and/or Engels by Mr President.
2 Show that the antecedents and present day politics of Mr President are centered on class-based,revolutionary overthrow of present day American and world capitalism.
3 That the ultimate goal of Obamaian politics is the creation of a classless,communist society.
It seems quite obvious President Obama is no Marxist.
2 As to the statement of the President on the ideal of living for others,this is simply a restatement of the kind of liberal,humanist sentiment that has molded the thoughts of the best artists,philosophers,politicians etc at all times in human history.Look closely,and you will find the writings and speeches of such great men as Mandela,Gandhi,Lincoln etc peppered with thoughts identical to those of the President.
I admit that these are humanist,liberal thoughts,and not necessarily Christian thoughts.
Tunji
By: tunji on May 19, 2009
at 12:04 pm
Tunji, I have most of my source material packed in boxes right now, so I will not be able to give you exacts quotes. But all one has to do to document the Presidents Marxism — as Wikipedia defines it — is to read the books of his intellectual mentor, Saul Alinsky. The only difference from Marx and Alinsky on class struggle is that Marx was Utopian and saw the struggle finally producing the classless Utopia you speak of. Alinsky, being a neo-Marxist, saw the struggle between the classes as a perpetual strugglem and the purpose of life being an unending battle to take from the haves and redistribute it to the have nots.
In Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” he outlines the way in which the community organizer achieves this. While there are other clear things in Obama’s biography that can be cited to demonstrate his Marxism, his links to Alinsky are perhaps the easiest to document. He never met Alinsky, but he was recruited by Alinsky disciples to continue Alinsky’s work in a discipline that Alinsky pioneered; community organization.
Obama spent most of his adult life pursuing Alinsky’s goal. He was trained in Alinsky’s principles, and he even taught them to other community organizers. It is also obvious that the President and his inner circle, all of them heavily influenced by Alinsky, are using his principles in caring out the President’s agenda.
As to the president’s address; I said, “taken as a whole,” it is a Marxist sermon. Taken as a whole, the president’s address was an attack on the private sector and capitalism. That is a part of Rush’s critique I did not include in my analysis. I think he was right on. As far as the other things you asked me to demonstrate, it is actually very easy to do and can be done from the President’s own words.
By: markcarlton on May 19, 2009
at 3:03 pm
Pastor Mark
1 Please note that the President’s words were an attack on the excesses of unbridled,free-for-all capitalism,and not an attack on capitalism as a socio-political-economic system, as such.
2 I’m sure you will address the other specific issues I raised,when you’ve fully settled down at the new location.But I hope you would not mind my noting the McCarthyite tone of your comments so far on President Obama.
By: tunji on May 19, 2009
at 5:20 pm
Tunji, I was interrupted and didn’t have time to respond to everything I wanted to. You said, “President Obama is the leader of Muslims,Afro Americans,Italian Americans,Christians,Jews,animists etc.In short,he is the leader of a rainbow nation of different races,faiths,national origins etc.”
The President himself has said something similar to this. He has said that America is not a Christian nation. He does indeed what to rule a Rainbow nation, but that is not what America is.
It is as ridiculous to say that America is not a Christian nation as it would be to say that India is not a Hindu nation. The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians of one stripe or another is almost identical to the number who call themselves Hindus in India. As there are may ways in which Hinduism is expressed in India, so there are many ways in which Christianity is expressed in America. And yet the variety of expressions or denominations does not obscure the fact that India is a Hindu nation and America a Christian one. More, our country has a Christian heritage. It was founded as a result of a mixed marriage between Enlightenment thinkers (mainly deists) and Evangelical Christians (who outnumbered the former).
For example, these words were spoken by the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court:
More recently (1952) Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, wrote:
Perhaps the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in our history, Earl Warren, said this in 1954:
Or consider these words from our first president, George Washington, (whom we call the father of our county). First from a prayer he wrote addressed “O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ” it ended with these words:
Washington also said this:
Or consider these words by our second president and one of the signers of both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, John Adams:
Or consider these words from one of the “Free thinkers” who founded our nation, our third president, Thomas Jefferson:
Our next president was James Madison, he was called the youthful father of our Constitution since he was its primary draftsman. He said these things:
The son of John Adams, an evangelical like his father and also a president of the US, John Quincy Adams, said this:
Our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln said this:
Or consider Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation:
Or his second inaugural address:
No, Tunji, America was not founded to be a Rainbow country and we are not one now, even though secularist such as Obama wish we were. The other sects you mentioned are distinct minorities, and right now the tail is waging the dog. But this country is still as Christian as India is Hindu — though we are in need of a great repentance and revival –and it has been a custom for U.S. Presidents from Washington to Bush to acknowledge God. As I wrote previously, there is a great cultural war going on in this country between those who understand and cherish our nation’s unique Judeao/Christian heritage and those who would separate us from it. Our current President is the leader of the latter.
By: markcarlton on May 19, 2009
at 5:37 pm
Tunji, 1. After our government released the secret Verona transcripts and we got into the Soviet archives it turned out the much maligned Joseph McCarty was right after all. If anything, he understated the case. 2. It is not MaCarthyite to point out what should be obvious from a cursory reading of the President’s biography and speeches and a look at his policies; he is a Marxist. He’s charming, a loving husband and father and a nice guy. He’s personally engaging and I would probably like him if I knew him. But he is still a Marxist.
By: markcarlton on May 19, 2009
at 7:27 pm
Tunji, For a further discussion on the influence of Alinsky on Obama you might check out this article from National Review on line: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY5ZTA5NmEwMGY4MTFhNDg2ZDg4NjU2MDkxOGYyYTE= I formed my conclusion after reading Alinsky. It is nice to see that others are drawing the same conclusions.
By: markcarlton on May 19, 2009
at 8:36 pm
Pastor
A Conference I am attending outside Nigeria demands my undivided attention.I will pick up the thtread of discussion on this thread on my return,sir.
Tunji
By: tunji on May 25, 2009
at 7:03 pm
Pastor Mark
Back in Nigeria.There are so many things to touch upon.
1 On the issue of vwhat Marxism is,and whether The President is Marxist,or has Marxist inclinations,the vital considerations have not been addressed by you,the Pravda editors,or the American Communist party official in his speech.
Perhaps the Pravda editors have by now eaten too much capitalist caviar(joke),or were simply hirelings who did not at any time understand or believe in what they espoused in their paper.There are 3 essential ingredients of Marxist thought and action,as highlighted by the Wikipedia definition of Marxism.Please revisit the definition and show that the phenomenon of Obamaism :
1.1 Borrows from the works of Marx/Engels,or their theoretical/political successors.
1.2 That Obamaian politics is centered on class-based,revolutionary overthrow of present-day American and world capitalism
1.3 That the ultimate goal of Obamaian politics is the creation of a classless,communist society.
While this left-of-center administration came to office at a time of grave economic crisis,it was left little choice than to take radical measures to revamp the economic and social underppinnings of the USA.Strongly Keynesian in inclination,this clearly is no Marxist/Communist government.
2 As to Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals,I fail to see how the desire to improve the lot of your fellow man at the grassroots,via mobilization and involvement of as many people as possible to improve their lives and communities,can be a bad thing.
The President borrowed from Alinsky’s methods and utilized these strategies in his phenomenally successful campaign.Have you forgotten how the Obama campaign team was able to mobilize millions of Americans at the grassroots to get millions of their countrymen to come out and vote for the first time?Have you forgotten this is why the Obama campaign was referred to as a movement,and not simply a bid for office?
3 As to the media adulation and the so- called cult of personality growing around Obama,people will recognize people who articulate their deepest yearnings,and associate with them.
Can you imagine that some of those who saw the crowds following Jesus everywhere he went in in Palestine,would have muttered about the cult following and cult of personality this carpenter’s son was building.Dick Cheney might as well have been one of these men,if he had lived in Palestine at Jesus’ time.
For example,in Nigeria ,out of the 36 State Governors in the country,we have an outstanding young Governor named Raji Fashola.Moving to improve the lives of the citizens of Lagos State at breakneck speed he has in just 2 years transformed the look of the State.Little wonder that you find graffiti start to appear on walls in Lagos singing his praises.Go on,ask any Nigerian in the USA you know about Governor Fashola.
And then,there indeed are those who have started to mutter about a cult of personality surrounding Fashola.Perhaps,the band of corrupt contractors who no longer hold sway in this relatively clean,dynamic State administration.
4 As to the issues of the Venona transcripts/Soviet archives, the notorious Senator McCarthy,as well as the specifically Christian nature of the American state,I will address these issues on return from work in the evening.Need to go off now to put food on my family’s table!
Cheers.Have a nice day.
Tunji
By: tunji on June 2, 2009
at 3:53 am
Tunji, I love your input. In fact, it makes me want to know more about you. Contact me sometime at my email: ml_carlton@yahoo.com and let me know a little more about you.
It is early in the morning here. I have just finished my devotions, and I have a little time before or have to go into the office. As you know, this is a busy time for me. We will be moving in less than two weeks. I have already moved all of my office. So I am completely without my most useful books (Although I have quite a bit of my American history library here at home and still available to me). But let me try to respond to you excellent post as best I can.
I begin at the point you ended, the cult of personality that has grown up around our President. I note that there is a very significant difference between Barack Obama and Fashola. Understand, I don’t know anything about Fashola other than what you have written but it seems that you are saying that he became governor, accomplished great things in a short amount of time, and as a result of his accomplishments a cult of personality is growing up around him. Am I correct in this summary?
Let me begin my response with a definition: A cult of personality is excessive adulation, admiration and exaltation of a leader, often with unproven merit or achievements. It is similar to hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders.
There are a couple of things from this definition I would like you to note. First, a cult of personality is “often with unproven merit or achievements,” and, second, “it is created specifically for political leaders.” In other words, it does not generally start as a grass roots response to a good governor, rather it is created for the politician before he or she as really accomplished anything.
I took this definition from and article I read last night by former Muslim, Ali Sina. He is an Iranian and a survivor of the Iranian revolution. His article was entitled: Understanding Obama’s Cult of Personality: Iranian ex-Muslim recalls widespread public ecstasy over charasmatic Khomeini.
He makes some outstanding points in this article. I will quote a few of them. But what struck me most was his point that a cult of personality is generally constructed before the leader has actually accomplished anything, because the people are so anxious for a change that they fall of a charismatic leader. Speaking of Obama he wrote:
To illustrate this I have included a clip from the campaign. The reporter asking the questions was an open supporter of Obama. He said that whenever Obama speaks he feels, “a thrill go up my leg.” On the program you are seeing a clip from he was trying to counter Republican charges that Obama had accomplished nothing. The answer he got for a supportive Senate colleague surprised him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
Clearly, the “movement” you speak of not a response to Obama great accomplishments. He had none. Now let me me quote another paragraph from the Sina article:
The same thing happened with Obama (except America has yet to figure out what the writer of the Pravda editorial has). Since he had no record of accomplishment to run on the only thing he could run on was his personality and rhetoric. And so his campaign, with his encouragement, constructed a cult of personality for him. He encourages this cult to this very day because he still waits for an accomplishment (The actions he has taken have exacerbated rather than solved the economic problems of this country).
So, you see, Tunji, rather than a spontaneous response to real accomplishment, as in the case of Fashola, the adulation of Obama is a faith based movement based on the hope that he may eventually accomplish something. He might, but unless you consider nationalizing our banking system, spending more than all of the Presidents before him in just one year, and taking over a major US auto maker accomplishments, it hasn’t happened yet. Come to think of it, if Pravda, the head of the US communist party and I are right, then he has accomplished quite a lot.
Moving on; I agree with your three points of Marxism. Alinsky was a political successor of Marx and Lenin (So also was Frank Marshall Davis, and William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright, but I digress) If I had my copy of “Rules” I could give you some examples of Alinsky’s Marxism, but for now I would just say that Alinsky did not gain the nickname, Red, because he had red hair.
Obama was not only aware of Alinsky’s “Rules,” he taught them. Please note I have changed my picture of Obama (above). If have read “Rules” you will be able to read the blackboard and see that Obama is in the process of teaching Alinsky’s Neo-Marxist antii-capitalist theory of class warfare. Specifically, he is explaining how those with power oppress the poor. Notice the arrow drawn from the corporations box. Notice also the heading at the top of the blackboard. There you have it, Tunji. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here you have a picture of Obama teaching Marxist theory. Interestingly, it matches well with the text of his speech at ASU in which he blasted working for “self-interest.”
Finally, the Pravda article mention Putin’s warning to Obama against going the Marxist route. As a former KGB agent, I wonder if Putin may know some things about Obama that the rest of us don’t (that could be dangerous). For example, According to an article appearing in Accuracy in Media (Please click the link and read. It provides much of the information you asked for. I quote this because my books are not available to me),
“This person, identified in Obama’s first book, as “Frank”, was Frank Marshall Davis. The article continues:
As a KGB Agent, it is very possible that Putin was aware of Davis’ recruitment of the young and bitter “Barry” Obama. I wonder if this knowledge underlies his warning to Obama not to go the Marxist route. I would love to ask him.
One more thing, the economic situation Obama inherited was not as bad as the one Reagan inherited. The difference was he believe that the free market system was the solution rather than the problem.
By: markcarlton on June 2, 2009
at 2:08 pm
Pastor Mark
I certainly will communicate with you on all the earlier shelved matters,as well as the purported ‘Marxism’ of the President,later.Due to time constraints (I work an average 12 hours each working day),I will restrict my comments for now to the purported personality cult that surrounds President Obama.
1 Your characterization of Fashola is incorrect.You will see later why this is so when we posit a correct definition of the term personality cult.
I would rather put it this way:
Mr Fashola became Governor.He accomplished great things in a short time.His achievements have attracted great praise and adulation from the public.As a result of the said praise some of his detractors are asserting that he is building up a cult of personality around himself.
2 In Mr Sina’s understanding of what personality cult is there are at least 4 ingredients:
2.1 There is excessive adulation of a leader.
2.2 This leader often has no proven record of achievement.
2.3 A personality cult is similar to hero worship.
2.4 The cult of personality (cop) is created specifically for political leaders.
The problem is that with his (and your) flawed understanding of cop,wrong conclusions will necessarily be reached.
Consider what cop is,properly understood – defined by Wikipedia:
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise.Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship,except perhaps that it is created specifically for political leaders.However,the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.
Properly understood,a record of achievement or non achievement is of no relevance to this phenomenon.Also,cop may also be created and and sustained by non political leaders. But,cop is something that is consciously created.We agree that with cop,there is excessive adulation of a leader,and that cop is akin to hero worship.
Clearly,President Obama could not have created a cop before he became President,even if he had wanted to. He simply did not have the mass media or other instruments of mass manipulation at his disposal.
3 In relation to President Obama (PO) you assert::
3.1 That his campaign constructed a cop around him even before he became President.A lawyer would hold you to strict proof of this assertion.You need to show how his campaign was able to hoodwink 300 million of the most literate,educated citizens,open to non stop bombardment of news,opinions and information,24 hours a day.If that is correct,perhaps you are simply acknowledging that PO has run the best campaign for any elective office in the history of the USA.
3.2 That PO has no record of achievement. But,didn’t I read somewhere that he was 1 term State legislator,and a 1 term Federal Legislator.A lawyer would hold you to strict proof to show that PO was a shiftless legislator(perhaps dozing all the time in the 2 Chambers,while debate was ongoing), that he introduced no significant Bills,that the Bills he introduced were irrelevant,not well thought out or drafted,that they were irrelevant to the masses of people in his home State,or in the country etc. Over to you,sir.
3.3 That PO encourages the cop.Once again,a lawyer would require that you present proof of the assertion.Please do.It is one thing to go all the way out to create a cop.It is another thing for masses of people to spontaneously react positively to you,without any contrived manipulation.
By the way,what was the record of achievement of Ronald Reagan before becoming President ? Beyond being a B movie actor,that is? Or,Arnold Schwarzenegger?
3.4 That all he can count on are his personality and rhetoric.Goodness me,wasn’t I taught that these are 2 of the most vital qualities to possess, for anyone aspiring to public office,anywhere in the world? I think I may need to take another look at my books on politics. Without a strong personality or good oratorical skills,can any man go far in public life today ?
4 You also make the incredible assertion that the USA economy was in worse shape when Mr Reagan took office,than when PO took office.No,sir.The country was in the worst shape it has been in,since the Great Depression .It was on the verge of spinning into a terrible depression,similar to that at the time of the Great Depression.Check the statistics,please.
Interestingly, of all those who criticise PO’s Recovery Plan,none has stepped forward with a comprehensive,workable alternative Plan.This is why I am convinced that the majority of the Dick Cheney types are simply ideological opponents of Obamaism,sulking at the loss of power and influence in the new dynamic.
I will examine the other issues later.Some are quite fundamental.Peace,my brother.
Tunji
By: tunji on June 4, 2009
at 4:44 pm
Tunji, so much to respond to. First, in the context of the article I referenced, Sina was talking about cops in the political sphere. I certainly agree with you and the Wiki definition that, “the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.” But if you accept this then you can not argue that “President Obama could not have created a cop before he became President,even if he had wanted to. He simply did not have the mass media or other instruments of mass manipulation at his disposal.” If having mass media and other instruments of mas manipulation at his disposal is a requirement for creating a cult of personality then a religious or non-political leader could not create a cult of personality, so you are contradicting yourself.
Also, though Obama is no Hitler, I remind you that the cult of personality was created before Hitler gamed control over the media and the other means of mass communication. The cult was created to propel him to power as an agent of hope and change.
Moving on; when I read your statement that Obama did not have mass media and other instruments of mass manipulation at his disposal I actually laughed out loud. I would recommend the book, A Slobbering Love Affair, by Bernard Goldberg. In this New York Times bestseller, Goldberg documents the American Media’s love affair with Barack Obama. The American media was so sycophantic that many have said that 2008 was the year journalism died in America. I agree. Were in not for alternative media the Obama administration would have had absolute control of the media.
As you know, no Marxist regime can allow a free press. The mainstream media in this country has willingly allowed itself to be co-opted, and the Obama administration — using Alinsky’s Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” — and his friends in the media are presently going after the opposition.
Now let me address some of your arguments: 3.1 — “A lawyer would hold you to strict proof of this assertion.You need to show how his campaign was able to hoodwink 300 million of the most literate,educated citizens,open to non stop bombardment of news,opinions and information,24 hours a day.” Unfortunately, most Americans — certainly the unaffiliated, “swing voters ” — are exactly as they were described by the author of the editorial in Pravda:
Tunji, as a citizen of the country for the last 57 years I have to tell you with great sorrow that the Pravda editorials assessment of the American people is much closer to the truth than yours. Sadly, It doesn’t take much too fool the swing voters in this country. The Media’s support of Obama did indeed provide a non-stop bombardment of pro-Obama propaganda that would have done Joseph Goebbels proud (Again, read Goldberg’s book).
Here’s an example of the great thinking of the American electorate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0&feature=related
3.2 — That PO has no record of achievement. But,didn’t I read somewhere that he was 1 term State legislator,and a 1 term Federal Legislator.A lawyer would hold you to strict proof to show that PO was a shiftless legislator(perhaps dozing all the time in the 2 Chambers,while debate was ongoing), that he introduced no significant Bills,that the Bills he introduced were irrelevant,not well thought out or drafted,that they were irrelevant to the masses of people in his home State,or in the country etc. Over to you,
No, Tunji, Obama was no more qualified to be president — by way of actual accomplishment — than my current congressman (he is a nice guy but he is not presidential timber). Like my congressmen, Obama did serve in the state legislature (for about the same amount of time). But believe me, that is no big deal. You ought to see the guy we have serving us now (I’m leaving the state next week so I can say this).
Even Obama admitted, right after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, that he was not qualified to be president: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftbN4UmAK3o
But two years later he began his run for the White House. So, this leads to the question; what changed? What did the Jr. Senator from Illinois accomplish the next two years that qualified him to be president? As his colleague and supporter, Senator Waltson said, not a thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfUmrBeO_Xo
That Senator Watson could think of nothing comes as no surprise. In our system a freshman Senator cannot do much in his first few years. So when it came to actual accomplishment; Obama had none. He still hasn’t. Even Hillary Clinton — our present secretary of state — said (paraphrasing) that his only accomplishment was giving a good speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
3.3 That PO encourages the cop.Once again,a lawyer would require that you present proof of the assertion.Please do.It is one thing to go all the way out to create a cop.It is another thing for masses of people to spontaneously react positively to you,without any contrived manipulation I must say that it would take some time to do this, but let me ask you a question and give you one quote. If you had a marginally qualified candidate, but one who was very charasmatic and a great speaker, how would you package and sell him? Now here’s the quote from Obama: “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” Now you tell me, what accomplishment is he citing? I would also ask you to turn once more to the “Is Obama the Messiah? Blog ( http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/ ) Remeber as you read the aricles that all of the things posted there are by Obama supporters, some are from his own campaign. I think any lawyer would find a wealth of material to cross examine PO with.
Now let’s talk Reagan and Schwarzenegger. I agree with you on Arnold, but Ronald Reagan was a successful two-term governor of the largest state in our country, a state with an economy so large that it would be (If memory serves me) the eight largest economy in the world if it were an independent country. So Reagan came to power with a record of accomplishment and a wealth of administrative experience. Also, check your figures.
Some are calling Obama’s administration the second (Jimmy) Carter administration. There is some justification for this, their policies are very similar. When Reagan came to power these policies had produced an economy that was quickly headed for a depression. We were in a deep recession. We had double digit unemployment (much higher than today). In addition we had double digit inflation. To try to control inflation the Fed raised interest rates. We had double digit interest rates as a result.
Reagan addressed the situation through cutting taxes and encouraging private sector investment. This resulted in two decades of economic growth, the longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. This growth was interrupted only by a very small, short recession — a hiccup, really — at the end of the George H. W. Bush administration.
Bill Clinton’s “boom” in the 90s was really just a continuation of the Reagan recovery. It was also a continuation of Reagan’s policies (Especially when Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 and was forced to restrain spending.).
Naturally, Clinton — who would have taken credit for the rising of the sun if he thought he could have pulled it off — took credit for it (If you doubt me, ask his supporters to name three things Clinton did to produce the prosperity of the 90s. Then, watch the dumb look on their faces. It’s similar to Senator Watson’s attempt to name an accomplishment by Obama.
Interestingly, Clinton also gained power by deliberately taking advantage of the hiccup in the economy (You may remember his famous campaign motto: It’s the economy, stupid). He called this very mild depression, “The worst economy in the last 50 years; the worst since the great depression.” It would seem that Democrats like to use this line.
The truth is, our economy is very bad and could indeed become a depression. The Bush/Obama’s policies presently being pursued with only mae it worse (after a short, brief recovery). But the reality is, the economy, at least at the present moment, is really only the worst economy since the Carter administration.
You asked for a better plan that socialism? O.K. How about following the Reagan model? How about letting failing companies fail? How about letting the market sort it out? How about encouraging the private sector rather than taking it over and villanizing it?
The result of this would be a short, hard recession, but once natural selection finished its work a strong, lean, robust U.S. economy would come roaring back. Left alone the market fixes itself. As it is, we will (as I predicted in an earlier post) have a credit purchased false recovery followed by inflation the likes of which America has never seen. Can you say, Weimar Republic?
Reagan is famous for saying this: Government is not the answer, it’s the problem. He also said, the most frightening sentence in the English language is, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” He was right on both counts. More later.
By: markcarlton on June 4, 2009
at 5:56 pm
Pastor Mark
I sincerely think that your glaringly extreme right- wing ideological beliefs do not allow you to appreciate some of these issues properly.
1 A cop exists when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a false, glowing image of the leader’s person ,achievements etc.
This is why your claim that in the largest democracy in the world,a young,relatively unknown (at least as at 2004) politician could have manipulated the mass media to create a cop,before coming to office is,simply speaking,ludicrous. Is he some mass hypnotist,or does he,like President Berlusconi in Italy,control or own a large chunk of the USA media.At least you have not,like the masses of others you point at,been ‘brainwashed’ by this manipulated media!
You have used words like ‘love affair’,'sycophantic’,'willingly allowed itself to be co-opted’ to describe PO’s relationship with the media.All these terms suggest willing acceptance,not manipulation of the media.I have indeed accepted that some of the stuff at the Obama Messiah blog go overboard,but then that must be the democratic right of these Americans to express their political preferences,just like you are doing here.
2 The indirect comparison of PO to Hitler is most unfortunate,sir.Hitler was an extreme fascist,and the conditions of Brown Shirts,mass street marches,thuggery and violence,simply are non-existent in the USA today.
3 I think it most unfortunate that you consider most of your countrymen as little more than burger eating,simple minded cretins,mass consumption flotsam and jetsam ,who are incapable of reaching an unmanipulated opinion. I need say no more.
4 I believe that swing voters are undecided persons,who can be swayed one way or the other.Generally,they are a minority, but could be decisive in close electoral races.Have you forgotten that the McCain/Obama race was not a close one?
5 You surely could not have missed the self deprecating humility and humor of PO who referred to himself as not being qualified for the highest office.Have you forgotten that in his debates with McCain,he continuously ‘agreed’ with his opponent,only to turn round and politely contradict the position of McCain?
6 You mention Mrs Clinton’s reference to his ‘inexperience’ and lack of achievement.This is the kind of crappy talk political opponents hurl at each other,while on the hustings.Didn’t Schwarzenegger tell PO to ‘pump up’? And then,I do see one lady who is presently the Secretary of State in PO’s cabinet. Perhaps you should direct an enquiry to Mrs Clinton on why she decided to serve under a man with no record of achivement.
I think it indeed is the freshness and newness in PO that the public latched onto. The message of PO was new,fresh,original,invigorating,casting a vision of a new USA.PO articulated perfectly the disenchantment of the public with status quo ‘professional’ politicians,persons to whom the welfare and destinies of the citizens was just a matter of business as usual.
7 The pre existing record of achievement of Ronald Reagan is,at best,a dubious one.This was the President who could hardly sit down to write a memo,who needed prompt cards when he was discussing with foreign Presidents!He wad that dull!
On the matters of the economy,Maxism,and all the earlier shelved matters,I will revisit them later.
Cheers.
Tunji
By: tunji on June 5, 2009
at 7:29 am
Pastor Mark
As to the private correspondence,I will take that up at the weekend,sir.
Tunji
By: tunji on June 5, 2009
at 8:07 am
Tunji, my friend, please read rule rule number 3. You are free to disagree and argue with anything I say, but there is not need for ad hominem attacks. FYI, I am not an extreme right wing ideologue, though I am a conservative. My conservative heroes are individuals like William F. Buckley and Charles Krauthammer, highly respected intellectuals and not considered extremists.
It may surprise you to learn that I’m not even a doctrinaire Republican. As a matter of fact, in response to your previous post — 3.4 That all he can count on are his personality and rhetoric.Goodness me,wasn’t I taught that these are 2 of the most vital qualities to possess, for anyone aspiring to public office,anywhere in the world? I think I may need to take another look at my books on politics. Without a strong personality or good oratorical skills,can any man go far in public life today ? — I was going to say that George W. Bush proves that you don’t need to have a strong personality or good oratorical skills to make it in politics….I might add, he also proves that you don’t have to be exceptionally bright to become President of the United States (Obama has shown that you don’t need to have a record of accomplishment either).
Tunji, I was once what was known as a Reagan Democrat; a Democrat who came to the Republican Party as a result of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I was a registered Democrat until I moved to Ogallala. At one point a few years ago I became so angry at Bush/Cheney I even registered as an independent. However, in my State you cannot vote in the primary elections unless you are registered as either a Democrat or a Republican. So I held my nose an re-registered as a Republican. I still often refer to myself as a Democrat in exile in the Republican Party.
I will have to see what the rules are in the new State I am moving to. If I can do so and still vote in primary elections, I will probably register as an independent. So let’s stick to ideas and avoid labels. Although there is one label I like: I am a crunchy-con:
Moving on; you are insisting that a that a cop exists when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a false, glowing image of the leader’s person ,achievements etc based on Wiki’s definition. I do not accept this definition.
As I said in my last response, cults of personality can be created around religious figures and non-government officials. Historic examples from our nation’s history: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Jim Jones, David Koresh and Warren Jeffs. Also, as I pointed out, it was the cult of personality deliberately cultivated by Hitler and the Nazis, that propelled Hitler to power. So, yes, I agree with you; a leader of a country can create a cult of personality. Stalin would be a perfect example of this. But a person need not be in government nor have power of government behind him or her to create a cult of personality.
Given, then, that individuals other than heads of state can created cops, I think Sina’s definition is much better than Wiki’s. Further, I do not believe it is ludicrous to say that this relatively unknown politician, Barack Obama, could have manipulated the mass media to create a cop before coming to office is. I think that is the only explanation for it.
I go back to the question I asked you last time; if not for a cop, how would you package a man with no accomplishments in public life and persuade people that he is qualified to be president? With regard to candidate Obama’s vision for America, all Obama gave us was rhetoric; trust me speeches and calls to believe in him and “yourself.” Hope. Peace. Change. Nice words, no plan.
Also, I was careful to say that Obama is not Hitler. At a personal level there is much to like and admire about our President. I can think of nothing I admire about Hitler. I tried to be careful because I wanted avoid a logical fallacy: Reductio ad Hitlerium .
The only reason I mentioned him was to make the point that one does not need to be a leader of a nation in order to create a cult of personality. Let me illustrate.
Let us imagine I was debating with a person who was arguing that vegetarians are always non-violent. I might point out that Hitler was a vegetarian, not to equate vegetarians with Hitler, but to refute her argument that vegetarians are always non-violence.
Now, let’s assume that Obama is also a vegetarian and the woman I am arguing with says she voted for him because he is a vegetarian and vegetarians are non-violent and and therefore less likely to go to war against their neighbors than meat eaters. Again, I might mention the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian. At this point she might become very upset and say, “You’re implying that Obama is like Hitler. Of course, I would not be doing anything of the kind. See my point?
There is an unfortunate corollary to Reductio ad Hitlerium, it is the fallacy of saying that we cannot draw legitimate parallels between the policies of this administration and those pursued by the Nazis without being guilty of Reductio ad Hitlerium. Even in our current debate this has become a draw back because, as you have pointed out, there is not a direct link between the economic policies of Obama and Marx.
I can certainly demonstrate that PO views been informed by Marxist such as Davis, Alinsky, Ayers and others. However, his actual policies are much closer to fascism than communism. But imagine what you would have said had I accused Obama of fascism. Rather than thoughtfully considering my point I have little doubt that you say I was comparing Obama to Hitler. But what is forgotten is that there was a time — early on — when fascism was not viewed as an evil, but perhaps the wave of the future; a new middle ground between capitalism and communism. What is forgotten is that there was a time — early on when Hitler was greatly admired among intellectuals in both Europe and the U.S.
Hitler’s use of Keynesian economic theory (much more broadly applied than in America) was credited with bringing Germany out of the Great Depression far in advance of the rest of the world. In fact, his apparent success gave Keynesian theory greater credibility since Germany was the first nation to apply it and it seemed to work so well. I should also point out that Hitler himself was not the one responsible Germany’s “recovery.” He didn’t know anything about economics. It was his finance minister, Hjalmar Schact, who was really responsible for what was viewed at the time as the German Economic miracle (Hitler got rid of him later).
Now when one looks objectively at Schact’s plan and compares it to Obama’s the similarities are undeniable. That’s why I have predicted it will end the same way; inflation, wage and price controls to try to control it, increased taxation and finally hyper-inflation. So even though National Socialism is a closer parallel to the Obama model than pure Marxism, one cannot point out these oblivious similarities without being accused of Reductio ad Hiterium. This prevents honest debate.
Finally, Reagan’s accomplishments were real. His private writings, some of which have been released recently, show that he was a first class thinker. His liberal enemies did try to paint him as an unintelligent man. This is a typical tactic. One conservative writer has pointed out that if liberals were not allowed to call conservatives stupid [I would add, extremists] they would lose 3/4 of their arguments. I think that’s too low a figure. I would say they would lose 4/5 of their argument. But even if Reagan was as stupid as his enemies say he was, how much more stupid must they have been to be constantly outwitted by him?
I will need to respond to the rest later. I don’t work as hard as you, but I do have to work sometimes. This is my last day in the office so I had better get with it.
By: markcarlton on June 5, 2009
at 4:59 pm
Pastor Mark
1 The benefit of using categories is to be able to characterize persons,events,movements etc is that they help us to summarize positions.In characterizing myself as a mild socialist,I have probably given a snapshot of my socio-political stance.Similarly,if you walk into a store and ask to buy rock records,you are not likely to be shown to the reggae records section.
My summarization of your position is based on my evaluation of your world outlook,based on our interaction this far.You have stated that the category in which I put you is not correct.Let us leave it at that.
2 If there is no agreement on what cop -what we are discussing- is, the basis of discussion is not existent.We would be talking at,not to each other.
Tunji
By: tunji on June 5, 2009
at 10:48 pm
Hi again.
1. “…let’s leave it at that.” Good. I like actual discussion of ideas much better.
2. This is why it is important that we agree on definitions before debating. I think it was Voltaire that said, “If you are going to argue with me, define your terms.” This is always a good idea because of the reason you give. Without agree on a definition there can be no real discussion. If I say, a priori, that a banana is yellow and you say it is purple we can not talk about the color of bananas. Of course, it may be that an argument can be made that would convince one or the the other of us that we were wrong. I’ve offered some examples of cops being created by other than heads of state. Hitler is one example, the cult leaders I’ve listed are examples too. 1. So given these examples, why is my proposed definition in error? 2. Don’t these examples call the adequacy of the Wiki definition into question?
By: markcarlton on June 5, 2009
at 11:29 pm
Dear Mark.
I personally like President Obama. Though I am not an American myself and don’t agree with many of his policies or the expectations the media has placed on him, I feel that some of your criticism is unwarrented. However some of it is dead on. I agree thet the media is creating a sort of cult around the president and that it is really leading people to make some unhealthy outlooks towards him. Though I don’t think he agrees with much of it.
By: Matthew on June 10, 2009
at 8:11 pm
I think the cultic following of Obama is the most troubling thing about his ascent to power. If Obama doesn’t agree with it he should rebuke it. As far as I know he has not done this. On the other hand, it seems to me that he has always encouraged it and deliberately evokes and then basks in it. His acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver is an example of this.
I am curious; what parts of my critique you find unwarranted>
By: markcarlton on June 10, 2009
at 10:10 pm
Well the only two that I really disagree with are about Alinsky and his Marxist ties and how he basks in the media. I accept that for a fact since he’s the President and a very good speaker at that. Whe he came to my country I could really tell he was a man of the people.
By: Matthew on June 11, 2009
at 7:39 pm