jump to navigation

Obama’s Relative Revolution August 2, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Bible, civilization, Democrats, Iran, Israel, Middle East, moral relativism, multiculturalism, news, politics, religion, United States.
trackback

The following is an excerpt of an excellent political critique of Senator Obama and his presidential campaign titled “Obama And The New American Revolution.” It was written by Prof. Paul Eidelberg who is co-founder of the Israel-based Foundation for Constitutional Democracy.

Everyone knows, by now, that Senator Obama is a glib speaker. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that his slogan of CHANGE is vacuous: he does not articulate a set of basic political principles, nor does he have a well-known record of legislative accomplishments from which one might deduce his basic convictions. Although his voting record in the Senate stamps him a leftist, he strikes many people as an enigmatic phenomenon, which can attract as well as repel. (a blogger emphasis)

His 20-year attendance at the church of Jeremiah Wright—an anti-American pastor and unabashed Jew-hater—is suggestive, but his campaign for the presidency has compelled him to equivocate about his guru and then reject him. Obama is nothing if not an ambitious politician whose first priority is to be elected. Nothing new here; but that he should have so long admired an anti-American pastor leads me to the heart of the matter, and this goes beyond Obama.

Pundits fail to explore the significance of a very simple fact: a vote for Obama is also a vote for the Democratic Party. (a blogger emphasis) Unless one understands the revolutionary change that has taken place in the Democratic Party, one will not understand the Obama phenomenon. That revolution involves both domestic and foreign policy.

Of course, domestic politics will be Obama’s primary concern if he wants a second term in the White House. Even if he should ignore the soft approach of his Middle East advisers on Iran, a hard policy would be trumped by his need to win congressional support for his domestic program, and that means the program of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has long been committed to Big Government, hence big bureaucracy, welfare state subsidies, high taxation, weakened private sector and diminished entrepreneurial energy.

But today’s Democratic Party is also committed to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism requires America’s retreat from national sovereignty on the one hand, and from superpower status in world affairs on the other. (more blogger emphases) This agrees with Obama’s trite presidential campaign slogan, CHANGE. Now let us illustrate the political revolution that has taken place in America by means of a very new Democratic Party headed by Barack Obama.

It will be sufficient for this purpose to examine how the House of Representatives voted on a bill concerning Islamic Jihad, a bill that conveys the ideological nature of the conflict between America and Islamic terrorism.

On May 8, 2008, Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan attempted to add an amendment on the “terror lexicon” of a House committee bill on intelligence funding (House Resolution 5959).

Hoekstra’s amendment condemned efforts by the State Department, the National Counter Terrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security to recommend a “terror lexicon” that prohibits use of words such as “Jihad,” “jihadist,” “Islamist,” “mujahadeen,” “caliphate,” etc.

On July 16, 2008, the bill was presented to the full House of Representatives for debate and adoption, including Congressman Hoekstra’s amendment. The amendment stated that: “None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’, ‘Islamo-fascism’, ‘caliphate’, ‘Islamist’, or ‘Islamic terrorist’ by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government.”

The amendment passed by the margin of 249-180 (with 10 abstentions). All of the 180 Representatives that voted against Hoekstra’s amendment are Democrats!

This suggests that these Democrats have been tainted by moral or cultural relativism. Relativism not only undermines a strong sense of national pride and identity; it also conduces to a soft and non–judgmental attitude toward acts of Islamic terrorism. Moral relativism saps moral outrage and dulls memory even of the monstrous deeds perpetrated by Muslim terrorists: the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan; the suicide bombing of Jewish school buses in Jerusalem. Even 9/11 is going down the memory tube, judging from the votes of 180 Democrats.

Relativism corrupts the mind, eviscerates patriotism. (a blogger emphasis) For the first time in American history, the Democratic Party vilified America’s Commander-in-Chief while the country was at war. Democrats were thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy, were thus prima facie guilty of treason.

Radical leftwing Democrats will ride on the coattails of Senator Obama in the November 2008 elections. In addition to their powerful influence on domestic policy, they will persist in a policy of appeasement of Islam, a policy that endangers Israel’s existence. Moreover, since Obama has said he will pull American troops out of Iraq within 16 months—an invitation for Iran to move in—I fear that the next Congress, if controlled by the Democrats, will legislate America’s defeat in Iraq and its virtual surrender to Islam.

What also needs to be emphasized, however, is that an insidious political revolution is taking place in America, a revolution pursued under Obama’s seemingly innocuous slogan of CHANGE. That change may well be nothing less than regime change—a change that will eventually terminate American civilization. I say this with two developments in mind: the economic ascendancy of a nuclear-armed China and the resurgence of Russian imperialism, undermining the U.S. by supplying Iran with S-300 long-range anti-aircraft missiles to thwart any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

___________________________________________

Prof. Eidelberg’s last paragraph shows why biblical prophecy teachers/ preachers are right. Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffreys, Jack Van Impe, and others have reported on the political and miltiary alignment of Russia, Iran and other Middle Eastern nations. China (or possibly a coalition of Asian nations) is also an important player in end-time scenarios. Besides money, power, and compatible ideologies, behind the Russian-Iran alignment is Israel-Palestinian problem trumped up by UN members and the Arab nation. The singularity of all Arabs under Islam’s caliphate is still the preferred organizing principle of all anti-western Arab peoples. Hamas, Hezbollah, PLF, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. are strict adherents to this view and goal. As implied by Prof. Eidelberg, the end of American global economic and military dominance is foreseeable under a Democratic regime. But, the end of America’s benevolent empire may result in a fully integrated global governance following an already integrate global economy. This would open the door to a global totalitarian regime not unlike those already existing in the Middle East. For such to exist, a benevolent dictator would be required. Biblical prophecy labels that dictator Anti-Christ. I suspect most leftists and Democrats would be comfortable with his rule.

 

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Victor Conedy - August 11, 2008

Here is my declaration:

From this day forward, no person who committs any act of terroism, such as bombing a bus filled with civilians, shoots another person for his or her religious beliefs or otherwise brings harm to other persons for religious purposes is eleigible to be called or referred to as a Muslim. Such an act relieves the quilty party of any religious affiliation or identity.

If we start doing that on a global basis, I am certain the effect will be devasting on such so called terroist. Of course it would have to be an all out effort. The media would have to stop referring to them as “radical Muslims” and other such terms. These terroist thrive on recognition of their causes and would hate to be referred to as simply “terroists” or anti-social groups.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: