According to NY Times columnist, Charles Krauthammer, liberal Internationalism is the foreign policy of the Democratic Party and the religion of the foreign policy elite. Subscribers to this concept believe the United States should not consider itself to be exceptional as the only remaining superpower in the world. Remember when President Obama was asked about […]
According to NY Times columnist, Charles Krauthammer, liberal Internationalism is the foreign policy of the Democratic Party and the religion of the foreign policy elite. Subscribers to this concept believe the United States should not consider itself to be exceptional as the only remaining superpower in the world. Remember when President Obama was asked about this concept, and he said that America is exceptional, but only in the sense that each country considers itself to be exceptional. We should not assume the responsibility of unilateralism (acting on our own) in dealing with other nations, but should practice multilateralism. Liberals believe we should only act in world affairs in accordance with a consensus of opinion from other nations. This mindset is behind the treaty with Iran to control its nuclear program.
Germany and France were against the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein so we can’t assume they would support a renovation of the weak Obama treaty or back sanctions. President Trump is clearly a unilateralist. He understands what America’s role should be as the only remaining superpower in this world. He is a realist because he understands that MidEastern countries only understand that might makes right. They take advantage of America’s unwillingness to negotiate from our position of power. But realism can only take us so far because, unlike liberal internationalism, it doesn’t really have an ideology. That’s why Charlie favors the third alternative in dealing with other nations: Democratic Globalism.
Democratic globalism is the conservative alternative to realism. Our national interest is expressed as the ideology of values, not power. John Kennedy called this ideology “the success of liberty.” President G. W. Bush said “The U.S. and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.” America was built on this proposition, and it is the position we should support as we determine how to handle the aggressive attitude of countries like Iran and North Korea.
This means the Iran treaty should be re-evaluated as to how it can serve our objective. How can making concessions to a country trying to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction possibly serve in spreading democracy in this world? In fact, they’ve sworn to destroy the democracy of Israel, and, unlike the Russians and other sane leaders, their attachment to a religion that advocates a jihad that they interpret as dying for Allah means they’ll not hesitate to use nuclear weapons even though it means they too will be destroyed. They believe that in their destruction, they’re martyred.
Making nice to Iran and North Korea doesn’t accomplish our objective. It won’t lead to reciprocal gestures. That’s a childish notion. They only understand one thing: Might makes right. We have the might, and we know what’s right. If we don’t put a stop to their programs now, we’ll all pay later. And that of course will include Germany and France and any other country which believes people like this can be dealt with in any other way.
In reading David Noebel’s book Understanding the Times, it became obvious to me that America just missed being dragged down to what the rest of the western world seems to have become, a nation in search of itself. For the past 8 years, America has somehow endured in spite of being exposed to the militant secularism […]
In reading David Noebel’s book Understanding the Times, it became obvious to me that America just missed being dragged down to what the rest of the western world seems to have become, a nation in search of itself. For the past 8 years, America has somehow endured in spite of being exposed to the militant secularism of the Obama administration and its objective of imposing their secular humanistic, socialistic agenda on all of us. This subtle violation of the separation of church and state is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution.
What does the Obama administration have to do with separation of religion from state? Well, if you have ever read anything about our president, you know he’s been following a socialistic ideology modeled after Saul Alinsky, his mentor. Mr. Alinsky was also a mentor of Hillary Clinton. According to Noebel, the ideology of secular humanism has actually been defined as a religion by the Supreme Court, and it is this religion that is influencing our government; the First Amendment is indeed being violated. Ironically, as secular humanists have been working towards this objective, they’ve been crying foul over their perception that Christians are attempting to do the same. Secular humanists have been at it since the first half of the 20th century in their goal to neutralize any relationship between any other religion except there’s from state. With the initiation of the Obama administration in 2008, their time had come to use the power of the presidency to attain their objective: socialization of America.
So, what’s wrong with secular humanism and socialism? Well, let’s take my first concern, secular humanism. It’s a godless religion whose objective is to force the separation of God from state. It isn’t a good fit for America; we are a nation of believers. Nonetheless, secular humanists are a determined bunch, and they continue to press on in their attempt to effectively destroy any role a God-centered religion plays in establishing the state’s conscience. They wish to separate Americans from understanding our accountability to God’s moral norms. But that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Though these secular humanists don’t subscribe to God’s law, even atheists have to admit it’s not a good thing for a nation to lose its conscience, much less lose the support of God. Even atheists recognized God-focused religion works best to keep the peace; and, besides, the spirit of America is theistic, not atheistic.
Okay, so let’s take my second concern, socialism. Noebel tells us secular humanism motivates a belief in socialism and that’s why secular humanists want to implement a socialistic government. Of course, as a disciple of socialist Saul Alinsky, President Obama has indeed been following the Alinsky model. If Ms. Clinton had won the election, she would have continued down this path towards socialism because, as I said, she too is a disciple of Saul Alinsky.
So, what’s wrong with socialism? As most people familiar with history and economics know, socialism has never worked very well worldwide. Even in its watered down versions, it only succeeds in destroying people’s ambition and stealing their dignity. And, when it’s being implemented in a nation like ours, the transition is a very, very painful process for every citizen to endure. Saul Alinsky had some ideas about how to accomplish that objective and presented them in his Rules For Radicals guidebook.
What’s the Alinsky model? Alinsky believed that to Implement socialism in America, historically a capitalistic, free enterprise, democratic society, chaos had to be created. The goal is to gain control of our society so a socialistic government can be installed. This isn’t easy to do in a nation which was founded on Christian principals of freedom and a Protestant work ethic. Nonetheless, Obama believed it was worth a try, and, based on what has happened over the past 8 years, he used the power of his presidency to implement the Alinsky model. This is the way he aimed at doing it: 1. Control healthcare because, in controlling the health care delivery system, you control the people. 2. Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will be content as long as you provide for all their basic needs. Providing for basic needs is what entitlement programs are supposed to do, right? 3. Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. The old “tax and spend” democrats really had a field day this past 8 years. Increasing taxes will produce more poverty. 4. Focus on gun control. Remove people’s ability to defend themselves from the government. A police state can therefore be enacted. 5. Take control of every aspect of our citizen’s lives (food, housing and income.) 6. Take control of education. Control what people read and listen t0. (i.e. control the media); control what children learn in school. Think : “CommonCore.” 7. Neutralize the positive affect religion has historically had on governments by militantly opposing any effort a religion has to say about how the nation is governed. (except the religion of secular humanism, of course.) 8. Divide people by encouraging class and racial warfare. This will result in imposition of more tax on the wealthy and could result in anarchy which will serve to implement socialism in America as people who fear for their lives as the big cities burn down turn to the government to impose martial law. Once that door is open, our “Nanny” will surely be here to stay.
So, instead of crying bitter tears about the defeat of Ms. Clinton for whatever reason you wanted her to be president, I urge former Clinton supporters to really give some thought to these 8 points I’ve presented above and realize how closely the Obama administration followed the Alinsky model and how close they came to inflicting some real damage on America. Electing Hillary would have insured we would move even closer to attaining this objective. Socialism isn’t good for anyone except the ruling elites, and when the elites become the “Nanny,” it has gone too far and we call it communism.
So then, we should all be thankful that a person dedicated to a continuation of the implementation of the Saul Alinsky socialist model was eliminated from politics for the rest of her days. But, Alinsky’s disciples will be back, and so we must retain our diligence. Of course, nothing succeeds like success, so it would be great if the Donald and Congress can hit the ground running and not just succeed in doing damage control by reversing the “progress” the Obama administration has made in implementing this 8-point agenda, but to actually come up with better solutions for the issues challenging America. You know what they are; they’re the issues the candidates rarely talked about. But now we need our leaders and our legislators to put us back on the right track and accomplish the campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. Just do it!
Burk Parsons, editor of Tabletalk magazine, wrote an article about the impact Martin Luther had on the Christian church and Christianity. He said that when Luther started the Reformation by posting his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517, he didn’t intend to divide the church. His motive was to draw attention to the division between what the Christian church had been and what it had evolved into. Rome had separated the church from its original doctrine by adding the false doctrines devised by men, and Luther simply wanted to unite the church and bring about real peace by proclaiming the truth of the gospel. The Reformers were not seeking to change the nature of the church, but to call the church back to its original form which was based solely on Scripture, the Word of God.
Parsons concludes by stating, “True peace is found only in the truth of Jesus Christ, and thus real peace and unity can only exist where truth reigns. The true church knows the truth, and the truth sets us free (John 8:32). And when we are free in Christ, we will also seek the truth and, in turn, the peace, purity, and unity of the church for the glory of God alone.”
You need look no further than Book Two of my Cabana Chronicles series to satisfy your curiosity about this world religion.
Thirty years ago, most Americans didn’t know about Islam. Thirty years ago, most Americans didn’t care about Islam. There were a few isolated incidences overseas, but they didn’t mean much to most of us. Then along comes 911, and radical Islam is at our doorstep. Our world changed forever. Radical Islam had arrived and it was begging to be recognized. It may not be politically correct to call it “radical Islam,” but that’s what they called it when they scream out “this one’s for Allah” just before they fly a plane into the World Trade Center buildings.
Book Two tells you all you need to know about Islam when it compares its doctrine with Christianity and Judaism. But you will not only learn about the Islamic doctrine, you will also learn why the people who commit terror in the name of Islam hate the West, and what we can do to stop them from achieving their objective of world domination.
Book Two is a must read for anyone who wants to really understand a religion which has touched all of our lives and will continue to do so. Knowledge helps us examine what we believe, and we can learn from what Muslims believe too. And knowledge is also power, the power to defend our way of life against those who would are bent on destroying it.
Our country has always encouraged immigration since our founding and America has benefitted from the great contributions immigrants have made to our success as a nation. Diverse cultures are good for America as long as their members focus on becoming a part of our culture as well, and this means they are to become Americans in every sense of what this means. It means they are to understand our history and what makes us so unique among nations. It means they are to focus on what they can contribute to support their new country. It means they are to obey our law.
So then, we should continue to encourage immigration, but I believe we should be cautious about encouraging immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. Immigrants from these countries follow a religion which is basically inseparable from their culture and their governments, which are basically theocracies. There is no separation between church and state as there is in America. Muslims in these countries follow Islamic law, which is very different in some respects from our constitutional law. We have to be concerned of the possibility that Muslims who come to settle in America do not understand the concept of our separation of church and state and may therefore be reluctant to follow our law; we’ve have already seen evidence of this occurring in places like Dearborn, Michigan.
Muslims believe Allah is the supreme authority. In their countries, government follows Islamic law which is derived from the Qur’an and their various supplements to the Qur’an like the Hadith. So, it’s not such a stretch to assume they might have a problem understanding this is not the way it works in America.
They need to understand how this separation of church and state is supposed to work here in America. They should understand our government has its function and their religion has its function. Unlike in their countries, we have no state religion. Everyone is allowed to practice whatever religion they choose as long as it doesn’t motivate them to disobey our constitutional law.
We Christians understand God has ordained government for the primary purpose of protecting us. Government receives its right to govern from God, who alone possesses absolute authority. Because government authority is delegated authority, to disobey earthly authorities when they lawfully exercise their authority is to disobey the Lord Himself. Paul explains this principle in Romans 13:1-7, particularly in verses 2 and 5-6. So then, as American citizens, we’re required to obey the law of this land, and anyone who comes here must understand this requirement. Muslims are to leave their Islamic law back in the country they are emigrating from, and respect the division of church and state in America. Only then can all of us enjoy the blessings this wonderful country offers to us.