Skip to comments.Mark Steyn: It's the secular Left vs. the Christian Left
Posted on 01/05/2008 4:56:50 AM PST by Puzzleman
-- snip --
So, Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left. If that's the choice, this is going to be a long election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
As usual, Mark is spot on!
I can't believe the GOP has gone essentially goo-goo rino/moderate. If conservatives don't get determined to rid this party of these Huckabee's, Romney's, McCain's and the Northeast rino's then here's looking at another 40 years of liberal democrat control.
Not sure the country will last that long following the Venezuelan model.
[Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left.]
Indeed. The Christian left is the non doctrinal, lets all get along and for the children do gooders who have abandoned the right ways of the God of Israel and His son Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God and who trample underfoot His Holy Word. In other words, the rino GOP has joined with the Marxist left to destroy America in their godless quest for money and power, the dems who like religion but hate God’s Christ are part of the Christian left, as is Huckabee.
[I can’t believe the GOP has gone essentially goo-goo rino/moderate. If conservatives don’t get determined to rid this party of these Huckabee’s, Romney’s, McCain’s and the Northeast rino’s then here’s looking at another 40 years of liberal democrat control.]
That battle is over. Perhaps a third party for conservative values and Christian right wingers of the Bible believers is in order or the whole house will be destroyed by the fool politicians in their lust for power.
Best lines in the whole column:
In the long run, the relativist mush peddled in our grade schools is a national security threat. But, even in the short term, it’s a form of child abuse that cuts off America’s next generation from the glories of their inheritance.
While Rush has been on this of course it’s nice to see the message condensed in one article.
[While Rush has been on this of course its nice to see the message condensed in one article.]
I like Rush but I do not think he will take a stand on the true conservatives of the GOP like Duncan and Fred because he has believes it is not appropiate to say who he supports. Personally, I now believe he is becoming weaker on conservatism as his monies grow.
Steyn at his best—current and penetrating.
Which is exactly their plan
At least Rush still knows how to spell “government”.
Terrorism and Illegal Immigration are the main problems facing this country so the GOP in Iowa vote for a minister
And just look at this web site —founded as a conservative medium and yet the Hucksters —Milties and Julies are all over
He knows how to spell but he takes no stand on the true conservatives who are running. He is becoming a talking head and the fire in his belly is growing cold as the government of America self destructs.
PS, you are a rude person.
We Desperately Need The Confessing Church
By Chuck Baldwin
January 4, 2008
This column is archived at
If the reader has not already done so, I again urge you to read the
book, Hitlers Cross, which was written by Erwin Lutzer and published
by Moody Press. This book should be required reading for every
pastor and Christian layman in America. In his book, Lutzer focuses on
the attitudes and actions of Germanys pastors and churches during the
rise and reign of the Third Reich. It is a masterpiece.
For those of us living in a country and time far removed from Hitlers
Germany, it is hard to comprehend how that nations Christiansand
especially its ministerscould have been so thoroughly taken in by
old Adolf. We assume such an event could never happen
againespecially to us. However, to any honest observer of history,
the conditions of the Church in America today are eerily similar to
those of the Church in Nazi Germany.
For one thing, as did the Church in Nazi Germany, the Church in
America has become infatuated with Big Government. Historically,
patriotism in the United States meant love for God, love for family,
and love for freedom and independence. Today, however, Christians of
all persuasions have come to accept and even embrace the Nanny State,
complete with its intrinsic obsession with an omnipotent federal
bureaucracy that exercises perpetual surveillance and absolute control
over every area of our lives.
For example, according to todays Republican Presidential candidates
(with the exception of Ron Paul), patriotism demands that we click our
heels to the Department of Homeland Security and that we
enthusiastically support aggressive, preemptive war. This is exactly
the kind of redefinition of patriotism used so brilliantly by Hitler
and his fellow propagandists. Yes, Martha, it appears that history
really does repeat itself.
When Ron Paul was asked about Mike Huckabees overt usage of a cross
for a campaign advertisement, he quoted Sinclair Lewis as saying,
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and
carrying a cross. Many Christians railed against Dr. Paul for making
this comment. However, the truth is, Ron Paul (himself a committed
Christian) is one hundred percent right! (To see how Hitler used this
same tactic, I invite readers to note the photograph of the German
Fuhrer in Lutzers book, on page 75, which shows Hitler coming out of
church with a large emblem of the Cross directly over his head. This
photo was used extensively by Hitler during his political campaigns.)
More than any other Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee
carries his Big Government machinations on a cross. I strongly
recommend that readers take a look at Selwyn Dukes excellent exposé
on Mike Huckabee at
In his book, Lutzer notes that the tool Adolf Hitler used to ascend to
power in Germany was his ability to wrap the Nazi flag around the
Cross of Christ. In fact, Hitler often required that the Cross be
emblazoned directly in the middle of the Nazi flag. These flags were
not only prominently displayed in parades, but also in church
As a result of Hitlers brilliant deception, Christians throughout
Germany were convinced that he was Gods man. They saw him as more
than a political leader: he was a spiritual leader as well. They saw
him as their countrys President and as their Christian brother. If
Hitler said the German people needed to surrender their firearms, they
saw it as their Christian duty to comply; if Hitler said they needed
to enact a total surveillance society, they freely gave up their
privacy; if Hitler said Germany needed to invade other nations for its
security, Christians were among the first to volunteer; and if Hitler
said they could only be good Christians if they supported the Nazi
Party, they enthusiastically supported the Nazi Party.
In short, Germanys Christians and pastors surrendered their hearts
and minds to Adolf Hitler, because they believed him to be one of
them. What they never would have surrendered to a professing agnostic,
they gladly surrendered to a professing Christian. Truly, fascism came
to Germany wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Of course, there were a few in Germany who saw through Hitlers
deception. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian minister who actively
opposed Hitler by organizing what he called the Confessing Church.
These were believers who would not surrender Christs sphere of
authority to Hitler. They saw through Hitlers Cross. Unfortunately,
of the more than 14,000 pastors in Germany, only 800 joined with
To the vast majority of Germanys pastors, Bonhoeffer was an
extremist, or a kook, or a nut. They relegated Bonhoeffer to the
fringe of Christendom. They believed Hitler and repudiated Bonhoeffer;
they chose Hitlers German Church over the Confessing Church. In
retrospect, however, who would they follow today, if they had the
Likewise, many Christians and ministers today have succumbed to the
purveyors of internationalism. Issues such as trade, climate control,
health and educationand even warare the tools globalists use to
construct their One World Order.
For example, Mike Huckabees success in Iowa is largely due to the
pastors and Christians of that State buying into his Christian
campaign. In a manner very similar to the 2000 campaign of George W.
Bush, Huckabee has carried his political campaign on the Cross. At the
same time, however, Mike Huckabee (as does George W. Bush) embraces
and promotes globalism. And, unfortunately, many Christians and
pastors do not seem to notice or care.
THE CHURCH OF HUCK: GROWING GOVT. IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
by Selwyn Duke
December 25, 2007
There is a candidate in the presidential race who has a serious religion problem. No, its not Mormon Mitt or recently-religious Rudy. It is Mike Huckabee.
Just for the record, I share Hucks faith in Jesus Christ. Not only have I no problem with religion in public life, I also understand that one cant really separate a persons world view from his politics. The political is merely a reflection of the spiritual; our politics doesnt emerge in a vacuum.
So what is my problem with Huck? Do I accuse him of false religiosity?
No, what scares me is that his beliefs are all too real.
To that enormous secular conservative voting block out there, I will say, be not afraid. Its not that Huck would impose religion through government. No, his actions would truly offend you.
He would impose statism in the name of religion through government.
While Huck will say what you want to hear to win office, he will not hear what you want to say once there. He will make tone-deaf Bush seem like a maestro. How do I know this?
Belief can be a great thing, of course. Our Founding Fathers unprecedented respect for liberty was born of their Christian belief that rights were bestowed by the divine king and not worldly ones. Mother Teresas Christian beliefs inspired her to toil tirelessly to aid the destitute and dying in India. But whereas the founders kept charity out of government and Teresa kept government out of charity, Huck conflates the two in a disastrous mix of bad theology and bad political science. Perverting Christianitys message and violating 2000 years of its tradition, he believes it is his Christian mandate to do good works through government.
With, of course, your money.
Huck invokes faith to justify ambitions ranging from the insidious to the idiotic. For the former, look no further than immigration, where Huck espoused the Christian principle, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, while advocating an apparent open-door policy. This, despite the fact that if any good Christian were to find himself in a country illegally, he would expect its citizens to demand he return home.
This illegal-enabling attitude was also apparent in a deal to establish a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year. Then there was Hucks support of drivers licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals and his opposition to a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
What was the motivation for these outrages? While some critics assert that he created a magnet for illegals at the behest of business interests, for certain is that Huck invoked his Christian faith while attacking supporters of the proof-of-citizenship bill. He labeled the measure irresponsible, un-American, anti-life and un-Christian. This prompted one of the assailed legislators, Jim Holt, to say that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
The problem, according to many, is that Huck doesnt agree. For instance, Daniel Larison at the American Conservative wrote,
. . . Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together [with Sam Brownback], they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.
(Note: This is why immigration crusader Tom Tancredo just exited the presidential race and endorsed Romney; he knows Mexicali Mike must be stopped.)
Huck explicitly cited the same Christian duty when explaining a lenient attitude toward felons that would allow for twice as many pardons under his Arkansas administration as those of his last three predecessors combined. Among those pardoned was the notorious Wayne Dumond, a thug serving 25 years for raping a teenage high school cheerleader. But Dumond had no feeling of Christian duty. He then raped and murdered a woman named Carol Sue Shields.
Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. Along with a third component, radical environmentalism, they make up three key foundations of leftist dogma that have been slowly, but relentlessly, absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so--but primarily since the end of the Cold War.
The part I liked best was, “On stage, he’s quick-witted and thinks on his feet... Put him in a presidential debate, and he’ll have sharper ripostes and funnier throwaways and more plausible self-deprecating quips than anyone on the other side. He’ll be a great campaigner. The problems begin when he stops campaigning and starts governing.”
..I'm personally ashamed that so many, who call themselves Christians, are without discernment...
..they are misguided and easily led....like lemmings over the clift.
May God yet have mercy on our nation....
..although I fear it will be His judgment, instead.
As usual, Steyn slices and dices with an exceedingly sharp rhetorical knife to find the core truth. My wife and I had similar discussions last night concerning the Republican field, especially Huck. Fortunately, we are both on the same page on Huck: can’t exactly pin it down but the man is not worthy of our trust. Steyn’s column gives form to that feeling and gives it a name — the Christian Left.
Thanks for the Steyn post!
Rush is right, and you are wrong.
If Fred needs Rush to advance his cause for him during the republican primaries, then A) who will he get to advance his cause in the general, when a smaller percentage care about what Rush thinks, and B) he’ll suck as President, because he won’t be able to rally the troops around him in battle with Congress.
Reagan had good positions, but he would have been a total failure as President if he needed someone else to do his talking for him. A President must be a LEADER - capable of convincing others that the way he’s championing is the right way to go.
Rush isn’t lazy or weak-kneed. He’s well aware of what it takes to be a successful President, and knows the only way for it to sort out is by campaigning.
Campaigning isn’t something you do to become President. In large part, it proves you are qualified to be President. I’m not certain Fred Thompson understands that.
“I think the sad fact is that a large segment of the American people—perhaps the majority—still look to government to solve their problems.”
Over FIFTY PERCENT of Americans receive some kind of government assistance! And lets not forget about the TENS OF MILLIONS of illegals who also receive free medical care, free eduction, free housing assistance and FREE FOOD!
Who says Communism is dead!
“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.”
That is an obscene statement. We WERE attacked, and not just once. For 20+ years, we were attacked with growing sophistication by muslim extremists. We haven't gone 6 years without another successful attack because we are lucky or because they gave up. We HAVE our freedoms - including the freedom to shop at a mall without being blown up - because we took the fight to the extremists and forced them to fight our military on their home ground rather than ours. And we have our freedom because we've allowed foreign phone calls to be computer-monitored for developing plots against us.
Ron Paul is clueless about world politics, but he sure is getting rich by playing the idiots who support him.
At any rate, the problems with both candidates will start when they begin to govern and thus I cannot support either one.
Republicans can do far better than Huck. We need someone who will govern as a both a fiscal and social conservative.
Rush is pushing conservatism, not any one person.
If any of Rush’s listeners are confused about who is a more conservative candidate than the rest, then even Rush’s listeners are no better than the sheeple who follow the MSM.
Do your own research and make up your own mind. Why are you looking to someone to fill the void between your own ears ?
Rush will not say it because of his pledge or eleventh commandment. As an EIB schooled eighteen year, fifty two week, five day, three hour, missing no more than fifty shows in that time I can state without any doubt Rush is a Fred Thompson supporter.
Wow, great post.
The Christian Left means that do-gooding, micro-managing Methodists like Hillary and Baptists like Huck with their Utopian visions of how life in America should be are more dangerous than number-crunching atheists named “Scrooge”. It’s enough to make one pray for separation of church and state!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You have to listen to more than just Ron Paul’s soundbites to understand what he is saying. What he means cannot be condensed into 30 seconds.
1. He does not believe we still need troops stationed all over the globe. I’ve asked myself that same question - what are we doing in Germany and Japan, for example, 60+ years after WW II ? We have a blue water navy - if need be we can project a helluva lot of power with the navy. Fighting Communism ? Reagan took out Communism by making them spend billions and billions on their arms and empire and causing the collapse of their economy. I ask you - is there any parallel to today and our economy ?
2. Secondly, he doesn’t believe in nation-building and certainly doesn’t believe it’s the job of the Army to build schools and such. We need our borders defended - not to have the Army defend some other country’s borders.
3. He makes a plausible argument that the defense of our interests stops at our coastal waters and borders. Neither we nor any other nation need the job of defender of the world or executioner of the intolerant. That includes involvement in the UN. We can more easily lead the world to freedom by example rather than by force. And if, like 9/11, we are attacked at home or to our commercial interests abroad, then we, like Jefferson, should take the fight to “the shores of Tripoli” - and then come home after we have pounded them to death. An example - did we invade Libya ? No. Then how did we make it uninviting for Libya to continue its weapons programs ? We took out Afghanistan as retaliation for 9/11 - and along with the Taliban, Quaddafi capitulated voluntarily.
4. He’d close our borders and defend them. If we had a trackable visa program, orderly and lawful immigration enforcement, and closed the borders/built the fence, do you think we’d have had 9/11 happen ? Maybe not - all 19 hijackers had overstayed their visas and had forged documentation/drivers licenses to enable them to stay here.
So, while I don’t agree with everything he says, when he says we caused some of the hatred against us over the course of decades of involvement in the ME, I believe we did. Does that mean Islamofascists have the right to attack us or that we should turn the other cheek ? No of course not, but let’s be honest about why they attack us. They hate our way of life, they hate and have declared war on any religion other than Islam, and they resent Western meddling in the politics of the Middle East. We can get plenty of oil elsewhere than the ME as well as drill here at home - let’s let the ME implode and collapse under the weight of their 7th century beliefs without robbing American taxpayers blind to build up other countries.
see my post #30
You're nearly 2 decades behind the curve. Do you consider the Bushes anything but moderates?
Check out http://www.rushlimbaugh.com and read or watch...
Monologue: It’s Back-to-Basics Time for American Conservatism
Watch Rush on Fox News Channel
Populism Is Not Conservatism
You’re nearly 2 decades behind the curve
I hope religious people at freerepublic and elsewhere will resist the lure of religion that is the public face of the religious left. Left means powerful government. The history of powerful government (Nazis, commies, and others) is a history of brutality and collapse. More socialist years in Britain and the US, were years of stagflation and decline. The longer and further a US state has high taxes, the more it tends to lose jobs, population, and even tax revenue. Big government is a bad idea. The Judeo-Christian approach puts the emphasis on the individual in the this life and the next. One may choose to give one's time or money to help others, but it is an individual's choice before God. IMO, proper religion doesn't support raising taxes on everyone (stealing) so that the state can “do good.” That is a siren's song we must resist.
bumPing that. Good read.
You’re absolutely right in that this is simply part of a continuing trend. I think it actually accelerated under Bush, and all Americans now automatically look to the government for a fix for anything in their lives that’s broken. Or for protection against having anything break in the first place.
I honestly see virtually no difference between the leading GOP candidates, except for the fact that Huckabee is more socially conservative (and this is the reason I will vote for him). And as for differences between the GOP and the Dems, it seems to be only in the aggressiveness with which they wish to impose statism. Whoever gets elected this time around will certainly have several Supreme Court appointments, and our fate will be sealed. So at the moment, I think we’d still be better off with a Republican, aside from the fact that all the Dem candidates are even nuttier than the GOPers.
But philosophically, nowadays there’s very little difference.
Where I part company with Huck's supporters is in believing he's any kind of solution. He's friendlier to the teachers' unions than any other so-called "cultural conservative" which is why in New Hampshire he's the first Republican to be endorsed by the NEA. His health care pitch is Attack Of The Fifty Foot Nanny, beginning with his nationwide smoking ban. This is, as Jonah Goldberg put it, compassionate conservatism on steroids big paternalistic government that can only enervate even further "our culture."
I believe what we are seeing is an attempt by the 'Christian Left' to hijack the GOP. They would like nothing less than codification of Baptist legalisms into US federal law and activist judges overrunning state's rights. This is Holy-Huck's base. They want a theocracy.
Just looking back to the Terri Schiavo reponse by the federal government: This was the beginning of the end for the GOP majority in congress. Continue on this path, the GOP will not hold any of the 3 branches again in our lifetime.
We HAVE our freedoms - including the freedom to shop at a mall without being blown up - because we took the fight to the extremists
Looks like its time for:
The battle IS over. Christ has vanquished evil. We are in mop-up operations. The Kingdom of Christ on earth does not depend on having a Christian as President. Else Jimmy Carter would have ushered in the New Age.
Rather, it depends on us, to NEVER give up hope, to do our best individually, to fight on.
If you have already given up (’it is over’) after ONE Primary in Iowa (where, again, IS Iowa?), I challenge you to sharpen your sword. There is much to be done. It is not heaven down here, nor was that ever promised.
Steyn only erred in the name for Christian Left. The proper moniker would be the religious left. Christ is neither left or right, he is Holy. Religious Marxism would be an even better description of the Hukabee phenomena. Nothing new really, been going on a long time. A dangerous soup of out of context bible and socialist utopianism delivered by a political messiah.
Or, if you can’t decide between a Senator and a Governor, why not vote for someone who held both offices? John Ashcroft would be an excellent President. As with Cheney, the left would have fits.
Steyn correct as usual.