Saturday, February 10, 2007

Leftist Group tries to use ‘God Talk’ To Lure Christians To Democrat Party

Don't touch even a slice of Vanderslice

A two-year-old public relations firm called “Common Good Strategies” is working behind the scenes to help Democrats convince Christians that they should vote for Democrats of “faith.” The PR firm is headed by Mara Vanderslice, a 1997 graduate of Earlham College. Vanderslice formerly worked as an intern for Jim Wallis’ Sojourners organization, a far-leftist "Christian" group that is attempting to convince moderate or conservative Christians that Democrat policies are best for achieving “social justice.”

Jim Wallis has been consulting with Democrat strategists for years to lure Christians away from the Republican Party. TVC’s special report on Wallis reveals the consistent far left policies of the group – which have been more in line with the old Soviet Union than with America.

While at Earlham, Vanderslice was a member of the Earlham Socialist Alliance, a group that supports the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and embraces Marxist-Leninist political views.

In a feature on Vanderslice in the Earlham College Alumni Bulletin, Vanderslice notes she grew up in a spiritual but not religious and politically progressive home in Boulder, Colorado. She arrived at Earlham distrustful of Christianity but after taking Peace and Global Studies class and spending time in Bogota, Columbia, she became more committed to “strands” of Christianity that she found appealing....

“Mara Vanderslice’s attempt to convince Christians to vote for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Democrats (who hide their real goals behind claims of ‘faith’) is working – and the Republican Party should take note,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Tragically, Vanderslice’s brand of ‘progressive’ Christianity has more in common with Marxist-Leninist ideals than with orthodox Christianity.

More here



An excerpt from Powerline below

During the halcyon early years of the Bush administration, it still seemed possible that the President and his appointees could prevail over the inertia and, often, outright hostility of the almost-entirely-Democratic federal bureaucracy. One instance of the administration's effort to get beyond the bureaucracy's stale thinking was the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans, which was overseen by Douglas Feith, who was then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

Feith's group became known for challenging the CIA's dogmatic belief that Iraq's "secular" dictatorship couldn't possibly collaborate with radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda. The Office of Special Plans argued that the CIA consistently played down its own raw evidence of relationships between Iraq and al Qaeda because such evidence didn't fit the agency's theoretical framework. That act of lese majesty must naturally be punished.

So tomorrow, the Pentagon's own Inspector General will present a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee on whether--I'm not kidding--it was illegal for the Defense Department to independently analyze the data gathered by the intelligence agencies. You can breathe a sigh of relief, though; the Inspector General concluded that disagreeing with the CIA is not a crime:

What will be lost in news accounts of the IG report and Levin's fulminations is that Feith's group was right. We know now that there were many connections between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda, and that Islamic groups of various stripes, including those labeled "secular" by the CIA, are entirely capable of collaborating against their common enemies.



Material goods and "The Pursuit of Happyness": "Will Smith's latest movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, stands as an extended argument underscoring the truth of conservative values. This may sound like an improbable anomaly given the traditional political, ethical, and social allegiances of Hollywood, but the power of the story lies in its basis in fact, and this in turn prevents it from being appropriated as a tool for liberal political ideology. The narrative is inspired by the true life experiences of Christopher Gardner, a struggling and homeless single father turned successful stockbroker and CEO.... Absent from the movie are traditional hallmarks of liberal criticism of the market economy: Gardner's story is one that occurs within an America conceived as a meritocracy rather than one defined by racism or class struggle. All of the rich white characters in the film, with one possible exception, treat Gardner with respect, fairness, and dignity, even compassion. And Gardner does in fact fight against poverty, but he does so within a context that ultimately rewards his hard work and intelligence. While there are striking images that display the contrast between rich and poor, Gardner's financial success as a stockbroker is actually dependent upon the creation of wealth through entrepreneurship and enterprise in the stock market...."

Speaker Of The House Pelosi Has Expensive Traveling Tastes: "Nancy Pelosi has requested that the Defense Department supply her with an Air Force C-32 for traveling back and forth from San Francisco. The C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour to operate. Funds to pay for this travel will be from the Defense Department, which means the American taxpayer. The DC Examiner has reported that the C-32 would cost American taxpayers approximately $300,000 for her round trip to San Francisco. Commercial fares start at $233. The C-32 has 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, private bed room and a crew of 16. Stewards serve meals and tend an open bar, according to the Washington Times. A Defense Department source who wished to remain anonymous, said of Pelosi's request, "she wanted a plane that could carry an entourage just like President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also always flies on military planes." Another source said the Defense Department will likely cave into Pelosi's request because of her and John Murtha's control over defense spending."

NYT protects Leftist mythology: "Abu Omar al-Baghdadi made his grand entrance onto the jihadist stage on October 12, 2006, and since then he's delivered two very important speeches - the more recent one came out last week - and has taken credit for much of the spectacular outbreaks of violence in Iraq of late, yet he still can't get his name in print on the pages of the New York Times. Why are the editors and reporters of that paper not telling their readers anything about Iraq's top terrorist? Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's guy in Iraq, and nowadays, the Sunni insurgency is being whittled down to Al Qaeda's activity in Iraq. It's that simple, and he's that important. So why isn't the Times writing that? I think the answer has something to do with what seems, to my eyes, to be a determined campaign to keep the American people from knowing the nature of the enemy in Iraq because identifying this enemy as Al Qaeda casts the debate about the war in a whole different light."



"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason -- Details here and here

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.


1 comment:

Gang of One said...

“Mara Vanderslice’s attempt to convince Christians to vote for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Democrats (who hide their real goals behind claims of ‘faith’) is working – and the Republican Party should take note,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Tragically, Vanderslice’s brand of ‘progressive’ Christianity has more in common with Marxist-Leninist ideals than with orthodox Christianity."

When did "orthodox" Christinity become the property of the Republican Party and free-market capitalism? Wasn't William Jennings Bryan a pretty hard-core born again Christian? Was his populism just a front for Marxism-Leninism? Come on. Christianity and the United States as a whole have ingenious leftist traditions. You might disagree with it, but the paint ideas like helping the poor through collective effort as totally alien to the US and the Bible is just bizarre.