Our christian President's Testimony

I've mentioned in the past our President and his verbal ascent to being christian and simultaneous questioning of the US Christian Heritage. While I would argue there is not fruit, there are many others (my OPT partners) that would beg to differ. Here is one place they would go to offer proof to this skeptic. Maybe you are interested:



I take the President at his word and call him a christian. Like many American's "christian" with a small "c". Not Christian enough to let it change our lives or impact our policy, but not pagan enough (yet) to abandon our heritage altogether. Whether this testimony is true or fabricated I don't know. He delivers it well. I find it interesting that this testimony took place in January 2008 right after Iowa (the big win) and right before New Hampshire (his loss). I wonder if that explains why the pitch went away. In any case he (at best) knows the seed of the gospel and (at worst) has the seed sitting dormant. May God cause the seed to grow. May God Bless the United States of America.

Fool for Jesus?

For the past 3 months or so our church has been praying for a friend of ours that was in an automobile accident.  He was thrown by some accounts hundreds of feet from his vehicle.  He was in a coma for over 60 days and has come out of it although his movement is still significantly impaired.  A friend a church suggested several weeks back that he felt the Lord was leading him and others to "lay hands" on this individual.  I believe God can heal.  I've never been a part of the "laying on of hands" as described in the book of James (5:16).  I didn't feel particularly called to pray for this young man, but I did think it was worth asking the family if they were interested since my church friend didn't know the family personally.  I figured I would "tee it up" for the men.  To make a long story short, it was just he and I.  Introduced them, my friend connected the dots and I was available to go.  We chatted on the way there about how to approach this since we don't know if the family, while "churched" understand what it is to have a relationship with Christ.  We debated gospel verses or just pray.  I suggested a few verses from the gospel, testimony, which I was apprehensive but willing to share if it were what the Lord wanted.  I also told my friend that if he was hesitant about that I was more than willing to forgo that and just pray.  He borrowed a colloquialism from his wife and said, "sometimes shorter, is better.  Let's just pray."  I breathed a sigh of relief, but wondered why I had felt the Lord was leading me toward gospel.  So, we dropped in chatted a bit and then prayed and "layed hands" on the young man.  He received it, shuttered a bit upon conclusion, and then we left.

The thing is this:  God can heal that kid.  100%.  He didn't.  I know, that it isn't very often that God heals in that way anymore.  But I walked away feeling foolish.  Deep down I really hoped for something miraculous, something real that would show that God is who he says he is-even today.  That two schmucks from a little church down the road could come along, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and provide a conduit to the healing power of Jesus. 

So in the end, I don't know what we offered that young man.  A view that people come, pray to the God of the Universe and ending with a shutter - they move on with their lives?  What value did we bring?  Ultimately, I don't know.  I hope someday to know.  But God commanded us in the bible to pray for one another...and so I do.  May God be glorified in my ignorance.

Snap shot of our Cultural Politics

The metaphorical equivalent of two idealogues urinating against the wind. Our cultural politics.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. That means me, that means you.

Case in Point 2: Redistribution of Wealth

Upon Presdident Obama's statement that he would rather be a really good one term President and whether it is his job to "get re-elected" again we review language that was completely available prior to his election. Our President is simply doing what he said he was going to do. If we, as the American electorate missed this, it had to have been out of willful neglect. Here then Senator Obama chastise the Warren (Supreme) court and the civil rights movement for not "venturing" into a re-distribution of wealth, "not going far enough" and for not being "that radical". We also are told that his "bias" would hold that re-distribution would take place at the legislative level. We also see the widely distributed exchange with "Joe the Plumber".



Folks we are getting what we paid for. There is no reason to rip on President Obama for governing according to his convictions. Isn't this what we would want from a President? To run according to his convictions and then govern according to his convictions? If you don't like it, change it.

Prayer for protection from appointees that can kill Health care Reform

Father as the President prepares for his State of the Union speech today we ask that you would awaken him to the time and attention that must be given to his appointees. Lord, so much to do and so little time to do it in. I pray that you will guide him in a way that respects your declaration in Jer 1:5. As he figures out how to get congress back on track and into a bi-partisan discussion of health care reform we ask that some hard working assistant will realize how detrimental a nominee for the office of legal counsel like Dawn Johnsen can be to his administration and it's pursuit of health care reform - particularly as it relates to government and it's relationship to abortion. Lord, I don't understand how any individual that believes that becoming pregnant is akin to slavery - can be expected to have the judgement required to win favor with a just people. Children - as you say - are a blessing. Father, Ms. Johnsen's contention to the Supreme Court that "...Statutes curtail [a women's] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude prohibited by the thirteenth amendment..." or that women are constantly aware when pregnant "...that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for it's own ends..." (amicus Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490, 1989, No. 88-605)


Certainly judgment that compares pregnancy to slavery is NOT what we need in this administration. Protect him from this unnecessary diversion by removing her from consideration.

Case in Point: Bankrupting the Coal industry

Yesterday we discussed the honest understanding the President Obama articulated that he would rather be a really good one term President than serve a mediocre two terms. An honest and forthright statement, which seems to indicate that in his mind doing what he believes is "right" - regardless of the political consequences - is the definition of being a "really good" President. That concept juxtaposed to the idea that a "really good" President is one that can get himself re-elected. I argue there is truth to this statement and a point of view that is clearly defensible. We all had the opportunity to know and understand who this President was and how he would choose to govern. Case in point: Senator Obama tells us specifically that bankrupting the coal industry is his solution to limiting non-renewable energy. Utilizing government regulation in order to create a hostile business environment would be the solution to limiting an environmental problem. (ie global warming) Check this out: Should we expect that President Obama would be elected and use government as a battering ram against those interests for which he disagrees? Is it really a character flaw that the man is governing in the way that he indicated he would govern? The simple fact is that while we didn't frequently hear the President articulate his views, he articulated them clearly enough that any independent or republican that voted for him has no excuse but a willful (or at least negligent) disregard for the meaning of his public statements, associations and past action. If you don't like what he is doing, then get up and do something about it. What is truly remarkable is that he is choosing to govern in the very way that we all anticipated. While we may not agree with his policy, and we may wish he would change his views I submit that there should be some respect for the fact that he is continuing to govern according to HIS principles. Those who disagree have no one to blame but themselves. (Nope - Not even Bush.)

Again, I submit that a "really good" President:

1.) has the judgment to govern in a way that is myopic in his attempts to avoid polarization where at all possible;
2.) where this is not possible-He stands courageously firm on the principles upon which he was elected(having been honestly articulated during the campaign)
3.) and in ANY case acknowledges that in the United States the People decide.

Really good One term President

Much focus was given today to President Obama and his interview with Diane Sawyer where he indicated that he would rather be a "...really good, one term President than a mediocre two term President...".



This statement begs so many questions, not the least of which is: "Does democracy, by it's very nature even allow for a "really good" President? If the standard by which all Presidents are judged is the American people then it stands to reason that the only benchmark is to win over a simple majority of their vote. More importantly the statement begs this question: "What exactly does the 44th President think a 'Really good' President is?" Is it intuitive that if you are a "really" good President that you will get re-elected? A really good President, presumably is one that better than half of the US voting public-through a delegate system- would choose to put into office - a second time. Yet President Obama seems to have the view that it is possible that a "really good President" might actually not be re-elected. Is it possible that he thinks that what he is doing, in spite of the will of the American people, is right and that a majority of the people aren't smart enough to realize it? Hence, he would be a "really good President" but the masses are simply ignorant. There is a larger point here however, that the President makes and it is this: A President should be guided by his principals. This President is doing what, any thinking individual that took the time to research understood. He is governing largely from the left-the far left. I knew this, many blogged about it and we chose him. Whether it was out of enthusiasm of the vote or apathy to not vote, We the people, chose this man. I believe that it was President Obama that stated in his book Audacity of Hope, that "I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views." He was remarkably up front about this...if you don't like it quit whining and DO something, if you do like it -- enjoy it while you can. We thought about his views on this blog, even doing a full review of the communist manifesto as primer on where we might be headed.

So here is the PCP(point-counterpoint), an American President IS elected to govern, NOT to get re-elected. President Obama is correct. The point of our system, which has checks and balance in governing and checks and balances in election, is that a good President is a balanced President. The IDEAL is he who has the judgment to govern in a way that-where possible-is myopically focused upon steering us away from polarization, where not possible-stands courageously firm on the principles for which he was elected and in ANY case acknowledges that in the United States, so long as God will's it, the People decide. As long as the people remain involved...and the 3 branches of government don't stray too far outside it's constitutional mandate(arguably a threshhold we crossed long ago), the system will weed out those who fall short of this ideal. President Obama is right, let's just hope that he is forever willing to respect the checks and balances that are designed to

Drinking with the Enemy

For those who haven't understood, the point of this blog (that no one reads) is that no matter our political view point we all have valid points. Abortion kills what is (or at least will be) a baby. Unwanted pregnancy is a problem. The poor need help. Property should remain in possession of it's owner. While every President dating back to Ronald Reagan has run on a platform of being post-partisan, not a single winner governed with consistency in a post-partisan way. PointcounterPoint attempts to highlight the consequences of choosing to abide in a culture that polarizes through political extremes in order to win elections. I'm just kind of sick of it. Maybe the one individual that reads this blog as they attempt to find a recipe for chicken cacciatori will agree. I don't want to think that this is the way that we must politic in order to win elections. I want to think better of myself and my common citizenry. I want to think that the extremes where presented on MSNBC and FOX commentary, et al are simply catching the same impulse that makes us slow down when we see an accident on the side of the road. You know, hoping no one's hurt but curious about calamity.

Is it possible to bring disparate groups together? My remembrance of Ronald Reagan was that while he would vehemently disagree with Speaker O'Neil - he was able to put aside the partisanship long enough to have a conversation over drinks. (Usually, the story goes, at the end of the day over a beer.) My impression is that Reagan ran on issues and principles. He picked up Republicans and Southern Democrats. He disagreed with whom he disagreed, he agreed with whom he agreed - and they all could come together and agree to agree or disagree. respectively. That methodology-at least affords us the opportunity for civil discourse. Is it possible to achieve that kind of balance in discourse again?

I think so. I hope so.

To Birth or not to Birth - thinking about the "Birthers"

So, he is our President. The people voted for him. Many of us glad he is where he is and others of us equally distraught about the turn of events. The fact remains that we have a President who was born of a Kenyan Father to a white woman from Kansas. He has spent more of his life being guided by the Americans in his life than by the Kenyans. He did spend several years in Indonesia with step-Father, but for the most part he was raised in America. What's the big deal with the birth certificate? If he is not, technically, an American citizen it would be only based upon a technical definition of "citizenship"...OK...a legal definition of citizenship. If, Barack Obama was not born in the United States nonetheless he was born of an American mother who just barely missed the age cut-off for his being an American citizen anyway, right? He is the President now. One way or the other, apparently there is no requirement for individuals running for political office to prove out their place of birth by providing a long form birth certificate. While I don't understand that policy, while I can't fathom why I have to provide a birth certificate for my kid to play in organized sports, but my Senator doesn't need to provide a birth certificate to run for office is beyond me - but that, for whatever reason, is the way that it is. In dismissing one of the law suits US Distict Judge James Robertson said, "This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do...the President of the United States has been properly vetted..." I tend to agree, whatever "properly vetted" is supposed to mean, the American people were comfortable with it. Deal with it. Change, but for now, leave it alone. He is our President.

That being said, I have to consider this:

Berg v. Obama
Wrotnowski v. Secretary of State of Conneticut
Hunter v. Obama
Stamper v. US
Brockhausen v. Andrade
Keyes v. Lingle
Cohen v. Obama

Above are listed some of the lawsuits that have been brought forward in an attempt to get to the bottom of this whole question of citizenship. Frivolous lawsuits, perhaps. What I can't seem to wrap my brain around is why, if Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii - doesn't he just provide the long form birth certificate? You know, the one with all the information on it like Hospital, city of birth and Doctor's signature. Why provide the short form to us only to later remove it from the campaign factcheck site? It was there, now it's gone. Why? Even if the lawsuits are frivolous, would it not be easier and less expensive to simply provide the long form? Take it to court 1 time, secure a judgment and move on? Some polarization sites use exaggerated claims of more than a million dollars spent to prevent President Obama from having to produce a long form birth certificate. How much did it cost, Obama and the American taxpayer to get these cases thrown out of court? Check out the following letter:



What does it cost to have a letter from a partner at Perkins Coie drafted? Let's say $300...I have to wonder why they don't simply provide a copy of the long form birth certificate with all the relevant information? Why waste his and our time and money trying to get the cases dismissed? When simply provisioning the requested information would put this to rest once and for all. It makes one (even one who is willing to give it a pass) wonder?

Prayer for protection from imperfect appointees

(NOTIFICATION: follow the links only at your own risk. Attached only as proof to those well meaning Obama supporters who would believe this is not true.)

Father, please protect the Obama Administration from appointees that would be detrimental to positive elements in and for the United States. Today we think about the possible ramifications of Kevin Jennings, the Safe School Czar. Lord we lift up to you his soul and pray that, if he is not already, that he be saved by the blood of Jesus. Lord we know that you love this man and that you wish to spend eternity with him. Please give our President the opportunity to share with Mr. Jennings the way of Salvation as best he can, but Lord please protect us and our children from his social views. Father, you know him. The former GLSEN Executive Director who sponsored events which outlined explicit content to the children of Massachusetts. Lord, this thinking is not condusive to the safe schools we want. Lord, please bring to President Obama's attention the perversions of your ideal that these conferences brought to the hearts and mind of our children. Father this is not right. Lord Jesus this is not Just. Dear God this will bring our children only confusion. Father, please protect our President before this comes to full view of the public. Let him correct this oversight quickly. And Father, let the President be gracious and merciful to Mr. Jennings and perhaps share with him the Love of Jesus.

(There is no legitimate counter-point here. The information Mr. Jennings has supported and espoused through GLSEN is simply and strenuously inappropriate to the kids for which he allowed it to be delivered.)

Bushes fault, I work too Hard and gotta repeat Myself

What is he thinking?

Why is Barack Obama relying on advisors who tell him to continue to blame George Bush? He even allowed them to persuade him to blame Bush for the win of republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election for the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. (with 5:10 left in the clip) Specifically he says "the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office, swept me into office...". Translation: People aren't rational and they will vote for anything that is change.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9619585

Additionally, listen and watch as President Obama answers the stereotypical interview question, you know the one: "What one thing do you regret?" with what is the stereotypical spin equivalent to "My one regret is that I work too hard." Starts at 2:45 left in the below highlighted clip.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9619647

The mistake he owns up to is making the assumption that if he just focuses on policy that people "will get it". In other words, "I spent too much time working." I don't know why an American people that were able to "get it" enough to vote for him, don't "get it" enough to have correct decisions on health care reform. With 5:10 left in this clip he tells us again that he has to repeat himself more because we don't get it.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9619616

Is it frustrating to any Obama supporters out there that he presumes ignorance upon the people?

Prayer of Thanks, Forgiveness, Balance, Justice and Wisdom

Father: Thank you for the virtue of compassion that you have given President Obama. He has weathered so much criticism for the financial crisis. Please don't allow him to exacerbate or prolong a bad situation and make it worse. Thanks that he has called upon President Bush to join him and President Clinton to use their influence to help the people of Haiti. Father, teach us your love and compassion, and give us a heart to repent for any unforgiveness or resentment we may be harboring against President George Bush and his Administration. Thank you for President Bush who, faults clearly identified by this administration - and in spite of being called out again and again by this administration and even it's prayer warriors, put these direct insults aside and lent his credibility to the Haitian people - responded to President Obama's invitation in servitude. Thanks that he set aside the political even though the invite comes from one who continually heaps scorn upon the former President's service. Replace hurt feelings with the agape Love of Christ. Teach us to follow the examples where our President makes good decisions. Father, give us a heart to forgive Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck for trying to manipulate, influence, and turn the people against President Obama with lies, accusations and more often distortions of truth. Forgive Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and to a (barely) lessor extent the media in general too for their misrepresentations of Truth, omissions in research and ideologically driven editing. Teach us your love. Love conquers all. Father, even when we don't agree with every decision President Obama may make, open the eyes and ears of America and the international community; even among those who would seek to do us harm, to understand that our President’s ultimate goal and agenda appears paved with good intentions even where it is ill informed: goodwill, good health, and dignity for all humanity. But he cannot do it alone. It is only through Your Divine guidance can he stay or acquire the path of your Divine Will for our Nation. Correct him where he is wrong, and direct him where he is right. Keep him and his family healthy, safe, and secure. Position people around him; particularly in his inner circle of advisors who will provide him with sound advice, and good judgment. Instill in his security forces the utmost professionalism and vigilance. Place in his cabinet leaders and the tiers of leadership in his administration loyalty to the truth, and a commitment to integrity. Fill the seats of power in congress with those who will stand with President Obama in a vision that is according to Your purpose and Your will.

In addition provide us a spirit of forgiveness for Mssrs. Pelosi and Reid who (against the will of a solid majority of people and President Obama - according to his public statements) - are providing a bill that will require the American people to subsidize the death of defenseless babies through a gov't premium - unless the taxpayer "opt out". Father please don't let our default premium subsidize increased death to the innocent. Help us to forgive them for going behind closed doors-even cutting out members of their own party who are concerned for the smallest among us. Even going against President Obama's wishes who advised that all meetings be broadcast on c-span - are violating the transparency he so frequently called for during the campaign.

Father, bless those of us not insured. This is truly a difficult situation of Freedom and how to align it with Compassion. Protect those who are defenseless and in dire financial straits. May the solution, be your solution - may your sovereignty be acknowledged and the strong hand of government be balanced with an acknowledgment by that government of the people of your supremacy. Don't let the bureaucracy use this as an excuse to manipulate the people for it's own purposes. May You Bless the United States.

Transperancy and the highjacking of Obama's Intentions

When will Reid and Pelosi get back to the process as President Obama endorses it? Soon I hope. Very, very soon.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

An Open Letter to the Obama Prayer Chain

I am responding to an item of concern on the Obama Prayer chain. I do so through this seldom used blog out of respect for the forum of prayer that the Obama Prayer blog represents. This post is in response to questions about the availability of federal premiums to be used for the purpose of abortion on demand.

In the fall of 2009 Bart Stupak (D-MI) presented an amendment to clearly and strictly prohibit the use of any federal tax dollars to be used for the purpose of abortion. This amendment was voted and approved by the House of Representatives. (240-194) You can see the amendment here. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both oppose this amendment which would assure that no federal funds were used to fund abortions. Click here for an article that offers both perspectives on this amendment. The side antagonistic to this bill (generally democratic) continually emphasizes that it is an "assault" on women's reproductive rights. This is a euphemism for a woman's right to kill her baby for any or no reason. We know this because Stupak specifically allows for cases where "a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...". I'll leave the rightness or wrongness of the exceptional type of abortion to God...the fact is that this amendment is designed to prevent our federal dollars from being used to fund abortions as a means of birth control and our House leader, Ms. Pelosi voted against it. See paragraph 3 in this article for proof. Further, the very next paragraph has Ms. Pelosi telling us she is confident - as they reconcile the two bills (house and senate)- they can eliminate the language because Stupak goes "to far". Harry Reid for his part didn't even include the Stupak language in the Senate version of the bill for consideration. Instead they wish to work with something called Nelson(D-NE)-Casey(D-PA) which allows for a subsidized insurance exchange to pay for abortions. (See paragraph 9 in this article.) While we can opt out of the exchange as a federally insured individual - Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says it's an accounting procedure to allow premiums to still be used to subsidize the exchange whose sole purpose is to accommodate abortion on demand. Hence, Mr. Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate version. In any case Rep. Stupak is not included in the reconciliation process to stand up for the fetus, which would be obvious to all if the Senate/House leadership were broadcasting on C-Span as Obama repeatedly indicated they should during the campaign. Which brings up the next question.

"GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" ... DOES ANYONE KNOW ANY GOOD REASON(S) THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE?

It is out of line for several reasons. Many who voted for President Obama did so with the understanding that he would be bi-partisan. Clearly our congressional majority leaders have decided that if you can't get 'em to join your view then leave them out of the process. The President clearly advocated for transparency, and a minimum of 48 hours for the American public and our leaders to review legislation before a vote. I suspect that you wouldn't be wondering about the legitimacy of my concern if the negotiations were being broadcast on c-span. There would be ample information as a result of that public forum for the interested observer to understand what is happening. This trend is something that even many democrats are concerned with which, in my opinion explains why the race in Massachusetts is as close. There is now a pro-choice republican advocating transparency running a close race behind a pro-choice democrat who advocates casting the final vote required to pass a bill that has lacked transparency. And even a solidly democratic constituency understands that this is not what we were promised.

Finally, "RICHARD, WHY DID YOU CAPITALIZE THE "O" WHEN YOU REFERRED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA...". I'm so glad you ask that question because as I wrote the note I first wrote it with a lower case, then changed it because I thought some would feel offended that since the one I was talking about was President Obama. (as if I used lower case to say 'president obama') No doubt this confusion on my part is a result of Oprah christening of Mr. Obama as "the One" for prior to that incident I would never have even considered that there might be people that actually believe the capital letter is necessary. Sometimes reading the Obama Prayer team prayer submissions, it seems there are those who believe he can do no wrong. That his efforts and administrative team is absolutely right in all things. To that I repeat what my friend Benjamin stated shortly after my prayer, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". This includes me. you. obama. bush. and every man making decisions and passing laws on behalf of "we the people". I voted for George Bush, I don't think he did everything right. In fact I disagreed with many policies. My past vote doesn't preclude me from hoping in the Lord and asking God's protection and direction for our current President. I take great pains to be objective. What I don't understand is the disposition about our President which implies that all who disagree with him have 'hate' or somehow have a 'wicked spirit of judging' - and those who agree are among the righteous. He does not define right and wrong. Only God in his infinite wisdom can define right and wrong - and I do believe that Obama, our congress - just as Bush and the congress that served with him can and do get it wrong on occasion. The beauty of our system however, is that by balancing the interests of us all - e pluribus unum - from many come one. From many opinions come one rule of law. It is a truly an amazing system. When that one rule of law is a result of only one view (60 democratic votes), and that view serves to destroy the most innocent rather than protect - I become exceedingly concerned, hence my prayer earlier today.

I have come to accept Ms. Jordan's assertion that we all pray what the Lord places on our heart and let the prayer be given to the ONE [smile] who truly is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins"I Jhn 1:9, even those that we commit out of ignorance of the facts.

Weighed, Measured and found Wanting?

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads. Is anyone surprised? The winds of change are upon us and they aren't what we thought they would be. In any case. We now stand in mock disbelief. Strong conservatives feeling attacked and unsettled at the aggressive track that they expected would come but hoped they were wrong. Moderates and Independents standing figuratively, if not literally, with their mouths gaping, because the One is (as Valerie Jarret would say) ruling by decree with the help of a solidly democrat based congress. Ironically, enough strong democrats are angry at Obama for the exact opposite reason - he isn't taking Health Care far enough. In their minds - no public option - no deal. Our choice is before us. A litmus for the coming elections lie in Massachusetts. The far and moderate right will encourage us to vote republican at all costs - don't split the vote - at the risk of government control of healthcare. The far and moderate left will encourage us to fulfill the legacy of Ted Kennedy. Vote Democrat. The result? We have a socialist leaning democrat and a republican that for whatever reason posed nude for a national magazine. Is there anyone else out there that thinks our choices sit before us, they've been weighed, measured and found wanting?

Socialist Revolution - QUOTE

What does revolution require according to a communist?

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists."

 Frederick Engels, On Authority, 1874