February 10, 2012
Obama, Saul Alinsky, and the Administration's War on the Catholic ChurchTopics: Political News and commentaries
Even if Obama relents on the contraception mandate, as he is now being pressured to do, his word cannot be believed, as his pattern of broken promises demonstrates. He can only be actively opposed, as the contraception mandate reflects his true contempt of Christianity and of Christians. ... And if this is the disdain Obama displays to Catholics during an election year, how much more fierce will be that disdain throughout a second term unencumbered by re-election concerns. - John Vennari, Catholic Family News, February 8, 2012John Vennari's piece today at Catholic Family News provides the best overall perspective on Barack Obama's war on the Catholic Church, and Christianity as a whole, that I've read since the day Obama purposefully had his HHS Secretary instigate it.
Vennari writes (some emphais added):
... this latest affront by Obama should surprise no one.Among other highly pertinent points, Vennari notes that Obama will think nothing of stamping out those who stand in the way of his Party's agenda. And if this is the disdain Obama displays to Catholics during an election year, how much more fierce will be that disdain throughout a second term unencumbered by re-election concerns.
Obama was a student of the ruthless tactics of Saul Alinsky, the left-wing agitator whose landmark Rules for Radicals was dedicated to the devil. Mike Kruglik, Obama's Chicago instructor in Alinsky methods, said Obama was the best student of Alinsky tactics he ever had.
David Alinsky, Saul Alinsky's son, applauded Obama's successful implementation of Alinsky methods. Immediately after Obama's acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, David Alinsky wrote a letter to the Boston Globe in full praise of Obama as one who learned well his father's methods.
Even Obama zealot Chris Matthews, in a December 2010 broadcast of "Hardball," referred to Obama as "the guy who comes from Saul Alinsky."
As is stated in his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky's foundational principles are:1) There is no such thing as dogma, all truth is relative: "For the organizer, everything is relative and changing," said Alinsky. The organizer "does not have any fixed truth." This places the organizer in a superior position, Alinsky insisted, because he is "free from the shackles of dogma." This is the school in which Barack Obama was formed: no dogma; no objective truth; no fixed standards of ethics; the end justifies the means; and corruption in the leader is raised to the level of virtue.
2) There is no such thing as a fixed rule of ethics. For Alinksy, the end justifies the means, and all ethics are elastic according to the situation you are in or the strategy you need to employ. Alinsky taught, "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times." If you need to lie, you lie. If you need to make promises you know you won't keep, you do it anyway.
3) Corruption in the leader is a kind of virtue: "To say that a corrupt means corrupts the ends is to believe in the Immaculate Conception of ends and principle", Alinksy blasphemously asserted. "The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process. He who fears corruption, fears life." Alinsky castigates the leader who places his personal conscience and personal salvation above the needs of the people, claiming that such a leader "does not care enough for the people to be corrupted for them".
How can anyone believe anything Obama says? There is no fixed standard of ethics preventing him from lying to achieve whatever aims he deems fit.
Pope Benedict XVI's January 19 warning to the US bishops against "militant secularism" is a directly aimed at Barack Obama and his cohorts of the new paganism.It's well worth your time to read the whole thing.
If the bishops ever again trust this man who believes there is no objective truth; no objective ethical standards; that the ends justifies the means; that corruption in the civic leader is a virtue; and that it is the duty of the radical to "crush the opposition"; they will only have themselves to blame for the destruction they visit upon themselves and their flock.
As Michael Gerson writes in his Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools, both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama's decision -- it's an edict delivered with a sneer:
"It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 -- a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists." "The implications of Obama's power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not -- and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer's ears."Gerson concludes with what should be considered as a chilling warning to all people of faith: The administration's ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the Obama administration has now formally declared its war on religion.
Interestingly, that "the Obama administration has now formally declared its war on religion" substantiates Father Robert Barron's assertion that the Obama administration sees religion as its primary rival in the public arena."
Posted by Hyscience at February 10, 2012 10:10 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: