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

Power in our Imperfection

Words to Friends delivered at Family Fellowship:

What hinders your walk with Christ? Anger that gets out of control? Fear or worry? Lust or Lying? Depression, Apathy? Ungodly desires? Upon this Rock – I will build my church. Jesus of course said this about Peter, arguably one of the most imperfectly flawed characters of the bible, certainly of the original 12. As we discussed how to deliver the “candy cane” sermon as a family one of the ideas that came to mind was to get a big Rock. Bring this thing in, set it down with a "thud", and say the lines, “Upon this Rock I will build my church...” to impress upon you the hardness of a rock, and therefore the reasoning for a “hard” candy being used. But my thought as I envisioned that was, of course that Jesus wasn't talking about a Rock. He was talking about one of the original 12 biblical kooks – That was Peter. So what do we know about Peter? Fortunately, probably on purpose we arguably know more about Peter than we do almost any other biblical personality. Born with the given name Simon, pronounced Shimon – is translated in hebrew sources say means “Listener”. Simon was anything but a listener. We all know that Jesus re-named Shimon and he named him “Peter” (Cephas). Now the timing Jesus used to do this is of interest to me. We know that John tells us that this name change was immediate. As far as we can tell the first thing - literally the first thing - Jesus did was size him up and say, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which translated means Peter). Jhn 1:42 Although Peter perhaps didn't know it's significance until much later in Christ's ministry. From Day 1 we can see that Jesus appropriated the new name meaning ROCK. Think about it, you meet a guy and the first thing he says to you is (paraphrased), “I know you're name is 'listener', I'm gonna call you 'Rock'.” (example our friend Jason son Bob, I'll call you Pyro) I have to think after seeing the personality of Peter which scripture would guide us to believe is more harsh than collegial, abrasive than diplomatic, more impetuous than thoughtful....I think Peter was a little more ROCK, than Listener. I have to think that Peter about this time was thinking (somewhat selfishly I might add) “I'm gonna like this guy.  My parents called me “listener” but I am definitely more 'Rock'". It also interesting to note what Jesus didn't seem to say at this early juncture of his ministry. Contextually it would seem to fit for Jesus to say... “Listener...you are now Rock and Upon this Rock I will build my church. ”. No, as far as we can tell God would have us understand that Peter went for three years with Jesus having this, (perhaps selfish) impression that he was now the “Rock”. Without realizing the true significance -the unselfish significance - to Jesus assigning him the name “Rock”. And the unselfish significance of course is that it is upon the man “ROCK” (Peter) that Christ would build HIS church. Why did Jesus wait so long to tell Peter THIS part of the name change?

I propose to you that Jesus understood that Peter neede to more fully understand that, while he may gravitate to the Name Peter out of his disposition and feeling about himself...Jesus perhaps understood that Peter more needed to understand that it was HIM (Jesus) that would give him the features of a Rock that He needed. That in and of himself, outside of Christs teaching Peter was more of a Rock Head than he was a Rock.. Peter throughly demonstrates to us during the course of three years with Jesus the propensity for greatness (often quickly followed by Jesus with “God revealed this...”) and at the same time unbelievable, unadulterated foolishness. Could it be that this back and forth of great acts, foolish acts, great acts, foolish acts...was the process that Peter needed to go through to get to a point where in God's appointed time, Jesus could say “Upon this Rock, I will build my Church.” He needed the time, the relationship with Christ so that Peter's internal response would not be one of Pride and self-righteousness, but in fact one that understands..."this guy has seen me at my best and at my worst and can still use me as the 'Rock' to build his church?" Indeed Peter's foolishness doesn't stop there he would go on to...immediately following in the passsage...Let's READ it. Matthew 16:21-23.GET BEHIND ME SATAN. Talk about a schizophrenic paradox that Peter has to deal with. Whoa...I'm the Rock, I'm a stumbling block....I'm Satan.! I mean - immediately following the “Upon this Rock" episode...  Peter makes the ill fated decision to buck up to Jesus and say “Say look Jesus, you know what you're saying about this suffering and dieing thing but THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO YOU.” Foolishness.

So what do we make of this paradox? Peter's stubbornness and pride was perfectly acceptable if it was stubbornness and pride for and in what was just and right and according to Jesus' teaching. It was good so long as it was based in Christ's teaching. But the minute that Peter stepped outside of God's design or purpose and the teachings of Christ he was destined for foolishness. One great apologetic in my mind for the validity of scripture is that the bible like no other - so called holy book - highlights the unbelievable but universal foolishness of men (even - ney, particularly, the foolishness of the first advocates of the Faith) to do things on his own accord and step outside God's perfect will. What other “holy” book so clearly outlines the failings as well as the strengths of it's “hero's”. After being called Satan by Jesus, denying him three times, getting depressed after his death and then being over-joyed upon his resurection Peter would go on to be the Rock (again). In the second passage read in the candy cane message Peter says – “Salvation is found in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Here was an unabashed demonstration of Christly - stubborness, why? Let's read the passage in context: ACTS 4:1-13

Now, had Peter achieved perfection? Had all of his success, failure, success, failure, success, failure-success finally paid off with perfection? NOPE. We know later that Paul admonishes, chastises – all big words for “bawled him out”....because he was being racist. Check it out in GALATIONS 2:11-16.

Now as I understand it the Catholic church believes that Jesus was christening Peter with some sacred “title” and that title passes on from generation to generation in the form of the Papal leadership. I would disagree with that tradition. I would have to say that what we learn from this is that Peter was the first “ROCK. Flaws and all. And upon it, as we see starting in chapter one the book of ACTS and moving forward that Peter would be instrumental, the first ROCK to leverage the Holy Spirit, Scripture and Godly counsel to evangelize enmasse. Flaws and all. In this regard Peter was the first ROCK among many to come, including you and me, to have the privilege and responsibility to use his gifts, as imperfectly as he may have done that, in a way to build upon the Church of Jesus Christ. .

So what do we learn from this? Likewise, as Peter and Paul and all the others we think of as historical “saints” we too, imperfect as we may be will be used by God. Plunge ahead, guided by God's gifts of perfecting us the Holy Spirit, Gods Word and Godly Counsel, plunge ahead with everything that you are and make an impact for him. What hinders your walk with Christ? Uncontrolled Anger? Fear or worry? Lust or Lying? Depression, Apathy? Ungodly desires?Unworthy as we might be...Unskilled as we may feel. Struggling with the sins we may be struggling with...even if we struggle to decipher his word to us ...In spite of all these things...if we carefully, prayerfully work out our salvation using God's tools Holy Spirit, God's Word and Godly counsel – then the flesh will become less and the God's Spirit will become greater and greater......and in spite of our flaws just like Peter and Paul and all the others - living this process, speaking this process, and discipling this process is what is and what will build Christ's Church. In spite of ourselves. Praise be to God.

Communist Manifesto in 8p's or Less -Day IV

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!


********************************************************************************

Chapter III - Socialist and Communist Literature

The aristocracies of England and France would regularly write pamphlets against the existing "bourgeois" society. In July of 1830 and in English reform the aristocracies once again began this vocation on behalf of the hateful uprising. Therefore noting seriously political could occur but only a war of words through these pamphlets. But even in this literature the old cries of restoration had become impossible. In order to be viewed with sympathy the aristocracy had to lose sight of the goal and attack the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class. This is how Feudal Socialism took root. This was a amalgamation of lament, political mockery - based on the past but warning of the future often highly effective in striking profane impact on the ruling class while at the same time in effective because it did not comprehend the direction of history. The aristoracy tried to use the working class, but the working class saw their self interest and laughed at and derided their efforts.

Petty Bourgeois Socialism

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie. Small proprietors were the precursor to this demise. In lessor developed countries these classes still co-exist side by side with the bourgeoisie. In other counires where "modern civilization" is fully developed the bourgeosie and proletariat go back and forth from one class to the other. Rising to wealth (bourgeoisie) and then "hurled" back down to poverty (proletariat) by the esuing competition. This process will make them all eventually disappear and they will become fully proletarian and overseen by managers. In countries like France where the peasants make up more than half of the population writers would speak for the peasants to drive a wedge between the classes. This type of Socialism "dissected" with great efficacy the contradictions and hypocricy of modern production. It proved "incontrovertibly" the terrible effects of the division of labor. It revealed the inequality of distribution of wealth, the industrial war between nations, the break down of moral bonds, of family relations. With positive aim, however, this form of Socialism seeks to restore the old means of production and exchange. Unfortunately reverting back to that caused its ultimate demise. It's last words: Corporate guild for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture. Ultimately history ended this type of socialism right where it started.

German or "True Socialism"

Socialist and Communist literature of France was introduced to Germany right when they (proletariat) had begun its contest with feudal absolutism. German philosophers devoured this literature, not realizing the differing social structures of their respective countries. With this void the writing lost all their practical significance. The work of the German academics then was to bring this in line with German conscience without violating their own philosophic point of view. This took place through translation. The result was the "True Socialism" of confronting politics, hurling rants against liberalism, against representative governement, against corporate competitition, against freedom of the press, corporate legislation and the idea of "liberty" and "equality" and preaching to the masses they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by these ideas. To the "absolute" governements it served to scare off those who would rise to power. So the governments used these writings in their favor. The lower middle class (petty bourgeosis) was the mainstay of stability. To retain it was to retain the status quo. "True Socialism" appeared to kill both the concentration of capital and a possible rise of the proletariat. The idea spread wildly. German Socialism proclaimed the German nation to be the "model nation". It made villains seem virutous. It would oppose vehemently Communisim's destructiveness. To this day (1847) the literature is prevalent.

Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie (middle class) wants to redress social grievances in order to maintain credibility and retain it's status. Economists, humanitarians, charity workers, workers with the working class, animal cruelty prevention groups fanatics demanding prude behaviour all belong to this group. The same ideology, worked into different groups. This idea generally wants all the benefits of modern social conditions, without the struggle or danger that results from pursuing them. They want everyone to be the bourgeosie, and of course to be the best station in life. They demand that the under-class (proletariat) march for this class which they see as a "New Jerusalem". Which simply means they should join us and drop your hateful talk and ideas about us. A second form of this socialism seeks to put down the revolutionary tendencies by showing that no politics will improve their station only a change in their economic circumstances. By this they mean leave the means of production alone, the concentration of capital alone (these can ONLY be negotiated through revolution) and instead focus on administrative reform. Just make government more effective. Bourgeois attains expression only through becoming a figure of speech. For Example: "Free Trade-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Prison reform-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Protective duties-for the benefit..." you get the idea. Summed. Bourgeosis are Bourgeosis-for the Benefit of the working class.

Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism

This is not in reference to great writings like Babeuf that support every revolution. The first attempt of the working class to attain it's own ends failed because it was under-developed both educationally and economically. It attempted social levelling in its crudest form. These systems spring to life during the period described above. During the struggles ensuing between Proletariat and the Bourgeosie. (mostly Petty) The founders of these systems see class antagaonism and in the Proletariat now, see a class without any understanding of history or political involvement. Since class struggle keeps pace with industrial growth the economic situation does not give them the opportunity to free the working class. They resort to searching for new "social science", "social laws" that will create these conditions. Historical action is to yield to their own invented ideas. They create these conditions of freedom in grand fashion. These ideas then drive the working class to an organization of society they think they thought of themselves, but really were contrived by these social inventors. History will be what they say it was, once they carry out their plans. As they make these plans they pretend the working class suffering is all that matters. Socialists of this kind believe themselves far superior to all others. Their belief is to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence they appeal to society at large, irrespective of class. For certainly, no one could see their plans for anything less than sheer genius. Therefore they reject all political and revolutionary action; peace at all costs. The will use small experiments, that will fail, and by example pave the way for a new social gospel. These pictures communicated to the proletariat correspond with the first demonstrated desire of the proletariat to reconstruct society.

These also contain a critical element. They attack every element of existing society including town and country, abolition of family, private gain and of the wage system; the proclamation of social harmony; the conversion of the functions of state into supervision of production-- all these point toward the abolition of class. These proposals are of purely Utopian character. There is an inverse relationship between this view and historical development. By standing back from what is really happening, these attacks lose all "practical value and theoretical justification." Therefore while the originators were revolutionary, their foot soldiers have merely formed reactionary, yet docile sects. The result is to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of the experiements and to fund this appeal to the purses and feelings of the bourgeosis. In the end they violently oppose all "...political action on the part of the working class; such action...can only result from blind unbelief in the new gospel."

Communist Manifesto in 8's or less - Day III

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!


********************************************************************************

Chapter II - Proletarians and Communists, Marx and Engle

How are Communists and proletarians different? There are only 2 differences. 1.) Only in that Communists acknowlege no individuality in nations or persons: The common interest of the working class is it's only concern 2.) Communists always represent the intests of the "whole" of proletarians - not individual proletariat from one region, locale or nation. The communists then are better than the proletarians because they work for the good of the entire group only - no self interest. Because the constant struggle is always one of securing capital (through wage-labor or currency) and this causes the clash of the classes the Communist seeks only this: "The abolition of private property." Said again, "Property in it's present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor." Looking at both sides we see that capital is not personal, it is instead social, power. Since the recipient of capital will seek to pay his laborer the least amount in minimum wage, the laborer will not be able to acquire property but only subsist. Communists want to "do away" with this. You are "horrified" that we wish to do away with private property. We believe that private property is already done away with for 90% of the population. You shun us because we intend to take away your property and in fact that is what we intend to do! Communism does not remove the ability to power to allocate products in a society, it only removes the ability to utilize the labor of others in order to move those products. You say if we do this then all work will stop and laziness will be the norm. We say no. We believe that if this were so the bourgeois society would have died out long ago.

What we believe for product and goods we also believe to be true for intellectual property. You don't like these thoughts only because you have been indoctrinated by the system that tells you that all these 'products' are good. In fact the culture is a great problem because the creation of even family itself is generated so that that unit of living can get more. This is selfishness. Therefore we are all for the "Abolition of the Family." This is because we cannot allow patriarchs to exploit the children in their family. Charge us with the crime of wanting to stop the exploitation of kids? We "plead guilty". You are appalled that we destroy this sacred institution. Poppy-cock. All language of the culture to justify exploitation of kids.

As for Mothers and wives, they too are merely tools that perpetuate production by facilitating the domestic lives of their husbands. Get rid of them. Create a "community of women". It has always been this way anyway. The rich and mighty steal each others wives, not to mention buy other women through prostitution. What is this but the community of women? All we wish to do is replace the illusion of "family" with what is really going on already anyway. We want to legalize the community of women and quit abusing them through this sham and hypocrisy. Call it what it is!

Of course, because we see no preferences we also wish to abolish countries and nationalities. We will get rid of these tensions all together. Give the working class the opportunity and they will choose this very quickly. If people are no longer exploited, then nations will no longer exploit and we have perfection. As this antagonism due to wage-labor producing capital goes away between individuals it will also go away between nations.

We won't even give religious or philosophical arguments the time of day in this book because they don't deserve "serious examination". Man's consciousness will change if his material conditions and social relations change, as Communism seeks to do. We've seen this time and time again. You argue that Communism abolishes all truth even the eternal ones, re-writing them and you further argue that this contradicts history. Never has man been able to abolish the eternal truths. To this we say, of course it's not gone away...you are all trained up in the system and he system perpetuates these eternal truths! Communism is the most radical of ideas and its application will result in the crashing of all "traditional ideas". We've just not been able to see Communism done correctly. So let's be done with these objections!

Here's how it is done. First, let's bring the working class to the position of "ruling class" through democracy. They will take all the capital from the 'ruling class' and give it over to the state....that is...the 'working class'. This will increase the working class, which is now infused with all those that used to be the 'ruling class'. Of course to do this we (working class) must be "despotic" in regards to the old ideas about property and production in ways that will seem unacceptable...but this is revolution and the pain will be worth the result. The actions taken will be different for different countries. But we can list 10 procedures: Abolish property; heavy taxes; no inheritance; take property; centralize banking (to the state); centralize communication; grow government business, land of all kinds; equal work for all;combine agriculture and manufacturing and get rid of towns, counties and country sovereignty, disperse population equally throughout; Free education to kids in public schools only-get rid of child labor in factories-while combining education with industrial production.

When all this is done then there will be no individuality and therefore no "political character". Political power simply put is one class exploiting another. If the proletariat can do all these things they will have abolished the need for class antagonisms (because no class no exists). It will even have abolished it's own supremacy as a class. In the place of the old we will have one big group association where the free development of each is required and in so doing we will have the "free development of all".

Communist Manifesto in 8p's or Less - Day II

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!

********************************************************************************

After Engle wrote the introduction which we outlined last post, he then begins to write in the voice of both Marx and Engle. He has a sort of Preface II section where he establishes through a by-line including both himself and Marx. We start with his Preface II (my term) below and then the first of four "chapters" follow:

Manifesto of the Communist Party
by Marx and Engel

Communism is, in a vague but consistent form alive and well in Europe and the government of our times are aligned to fight it. The result is 2 things: First, it (communism) is being acknowleged by all those fighting it to be alive, legitimate and powerful. Second, it is time that we publish their views for all to see in a document for all to see. We propose to do this, and publish it in muliple languages.

Chapter I
Bourgeois and Proletarians

All history relating to social interaction is a history of class struggle. Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other in one form or another. Sometimes hidden, sometimes openly but always present. Look at history and see this. rome, Middle ages, no matter...class struggle always exists between a 'ruler' and the 'ruled'. Our society today has not done away with this class struggle. We simply have a new face to replace the old one. The struggle and teh fight remains. Even though we now have markets and commerce these are ruled by wealthy industrial citizens that are the new 'ruling class'. (the bourgeois) America and it's founding has "paved" the way for this. The wealthy 'ruling class' of today is itself a product of a series of revolutions in the way we produce and exchange goods.

Each stage in the development of our current bourgeoisie also including a simultaneous political power grab by that 'ruling class'. This 'ruling class' has replaced a specific social order of man and his "natural superiors" with no other bond than blatant self interest. This has "drowned" religion, family, enthusiasm, personal worth and emotion as a sacrifice for man's ability to out-win the next guy and get his share. There are no more 'professionals' (doctors, lawyer, priest, poet, etc.) because these once respected professions are now merely paid laborer's. The 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) must always be changing/improving the tools of production and in doing this change the way we relate to each other socially. The run the "globe" looking for new and 'better' ways, talking, meeting, networking "everywhere". This destroys industry as we know it and replaces them with something new, constantly. Interaction and transactions around the world becomes greater and greater. This 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) draws everyone into the fold. Everyone and "Everywhere". Not only this but they make it fashionable to produce and consume. Since everyone is learning and re-creating what works there is no room for a unique national 'way'. It even forces oppressive forces to seek their way. (ref "Chinese" Gov't) These nations economies must follow or they will die. This 'ruling class' has created town and enormous cities. This forces consolidation of resources. (material and human) And with consolidation comes centralization not only of resources but of politics. In the last 100 years this has resulted in more production than the production of all history prior to this time combined. Labor does the work and the 'bourgeoises' benefit, this is derivative of post-modern feudal societies. This system becomes an uncontrollable force that not even the 'ruling class' can manage and so in their place comes "free competition" along with social and political systems.

This is what is happening today. In fact the productive forces no longer further the development of the 'ruling class' property, but rather the break down of this social order brings chaos and disorder which endangers the very idea of property. This system is not strong enough to operationally manage the power that such a system can generate. So what does the 'ruling class' do? They create progressively greater crisis and remove the constraints that are in place to prevent the crisis in the first place. So the system risks extinction by the very forces that brought it into being. This system has also brought into existence the modern working class whose only commodity to sell is it's time to increase other's wealth and can earn only so long as 'the ruling class' are confident in labor's productivity toward profit. This means labor is a victim to the lack of profitability of the 'ruling class' to live on other's productivity. These laborers don't realize that the more productive they make the 'ruling class' the more embittered they will become at injustice. This process of earning works it's way all through the purchasing process. The lower social structure, micro-business owner, shopkeepers, retired folks, carpenters, small family farmer's all sink into the working class because they don't have the cash reserves to become a part of the bourgeois class. While their skill eventually becomes worthless because of new means of productivity.

The proletariat also go through various stages of development, like the bourgeois. First work is done by one-off individual contractors. Then the job is moved to a factory floor or process. Then it is done by specific operatives of a single specialized trade. They eventually rebel against not the 'ruling class', but against the tools the 'ruling class' give them to produce. They seek to destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, "smash" machinery, burn factories and try to restore through violence the workman as he 'used to be'. At this stage they are not co-ordinated other than locally. Yet these things are not their enemies. They should be fighting the system set up by the bourgeois. Doing what they (proletariat) are doing they unwittingly win battles for the bourgeois.

What the proletariat also see is they are becoming larger and larger in concentrated numbers because the means of production is becoming more and more centralized. They begin to form associations with one another. ("Trade Unions") This improves communication and begins to centralize the revolt spoken of earlier so that a "national struggle" is possible. This is the national struggle between classes. We see it once again. This group will struggle and compete against itself but each struggle will only make it stronger and more united. It will pass bills and legislation for it's' class. This benefits the proletariat position by causing certain sectors of the bourgeoises to conflict, which then requires political action and, then results in entire sections of the 'ruling class' being pushed down into the proletariat.

"Finally," when tensions get too great and it seems that the whole of society will break up a small section of the "ruling class" will cut itself free and join a revolutionary class, this new class becoming the one that holds the future process "in it's hands." Since these classes get smaller and smaller going through this process, again, and a again...the 'ruling class' getting smaller and smaller each time and the 'proletariot' getting larger and larger...we see the proletariot are the only class that is a "special and essential product." Since this class has nothing, (no property) they cannot become masters of prodcutive forces so their natural recourse will be to destroy the property and property protections of all others. This is a national struggle. Remember, all history is a history of the clash of classes.

The essential ingredient for the existence of the 'ruling class' (bourgeois) is the accessibility of capital; the condition which creates capital is wage-labor. Labor, unwittingly is the key. What the 'ruling class' is producing therefore, is it's own "grave-diggers". The fall of the bourgeois and the victory of the proletariat will be the final result of this system in all scenerios.