Pete Buttigieg: Marxist/Socialist :: By Geri Ungurean

EXTREME LEFTIST SOCIALIST UNMASKED

There is a saying: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” I agree with this.

As Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My Father expresses this, there is confusion as to the “father” of whom he spoke. Many of us felt that he was writing about Frank Marshall Davis, who mentored Obama from an early age.

Davis was a card-carrying Communist.

But this article is not about Barack Obama. It is about a contender for the Democratic race for the White House. His name is Pete Buttigieg. Pete’s father, who died just days after his son threw his hat into the ring, was not only a Communist, but a professor who indoctrinated untold number of young minds, telling them that Capitalism was on its way out. He lauded the “Communist Manifesto” written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

It is said that Pete was very close to his father. When I read that, it spoke to me that the son had admiration for the father and for his political beliefs.

From washingtonexaminer.com

Pete Buttigieg’s father was a Marxist professor who lauded the Communist Manifesto

The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.

Joseph Buttigieg, who died in January at the age of 71, immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s from Malta and in 1980 joined the University of Notre Dame faculty, where he taught modern European literature and literary theory. He supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.

He was an adviser to Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that published articles “that seek to discuss, elaborate, and/or extend Marxian theory,” and a member of the editorial collective of Boundary 2, a journal of postmodern theory, literature, and culture. He spoke at many Rethinking Marxism conferences and other gatherings of prominent Marxists.

In a 2000 paper for Rethinking Marxism critical of the approach of Human Rights Watch, Buttigieg, along with two other authors, refers to “the Marxist project to which we subscribe.”

In 1998, he wrote in an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education about an event in New York City celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Manifesto. He also participated in the event.

“If The Communist Manifesto was meant to liberate the proletariat, the Manifesto itself in recent years needed liberating from Marxism’s narrow post-Cold War orthodoxies and exclusive cadres. It has been freed,” he wrote.

“After a musical interlude, seven people read different portions of the Manifesto. Listening to it read, one could not help but be struck by the poignancy of its prose,” he wrote. The readers “had implicitly warned even us faithful to guard against conferring upon it the status of Scripture, a repository of doctrinal verities.”

“Equity, environmental consciousness, and racial justice are surely some of the ingredients of a healthy Marxism. Indeed, Marxism’s greatest appeal — undiminished by the collapse of Communist edifices — is the imbalances produced by other sociopolitical governing structures,” Buttigieg wrote.

Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.

“They’re part of a wider international community of Marxist theorists and academicians with a particular devotion to the writings of the late Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, who died over 80 years ago. Gramsci was all about applying Marxist theory to culture and cultural institutions — what is often referred to as a ‘long march through the institutions,’ such as film, media, and especially education,” Kengor told the Washington Examiner.

Pete Buttigieg, an only child, shared a close relationship with his father. In his memoir Shortest Way Home, Pete called his dad a “man of the left, no easy thing on a campus like Notre Dame’s in the 1980s.”

He wrote that while he did not understand his parents’ political discussions as a young child, “the more I heard these aging professors talk, the more I wanted to learn how to decrypt their sentences, and to grasp the political backstory of the grave concerns that commanded their attention and aroused such fist-pounding dinner debate.”

Pete wrote that his dad was supportive when he came out as gay. He and his husband bought a house in South Bend around the corner from his parents, which gave the couple “a good support network despite our work and travel schedules” when they decided to get a dog.

The elder Buttigieg was best known as one of the world’s leading scholars of Gramsci.

Gramsci thought cultural change was critical to dismantling capitalism. Nevertheless, although critical of certain aspects of Bolshevism, Gramsci endorsed Vladimir Lenin’s “maximalist” politics and identified within the Leninist faction of the Italian communists. He went to Moscow in 1922 as the official representative of the Italian Communist Party and returned home to lead the resistance against Italy’s Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, on the orders of Lenin, while his new wife and children stayed in the USSR.

Those efforts landed Gramsci in an Italian prison, where he lived much of his brief life, which ended in 1937 at the age of 46. Yet his time behind bars was also some of his most prolific, leading to a collection of essays called the Prison Notebooks. Buttigieg completed the authoritative English translation of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, and his articles on Gramsci have been translated into five languages.

Buttigieg was a founding member and president of the International Gramsci Society, an organization that aims to “facilitate communication and the exchange of information among the very large number of individuals from all over the world who are interested in Antonio Gramsci’s life and work and in the presence of his thought in contemporary culture.”

In 2013, Buttigieg spoke at a $500,000 outdoor New York City art installation honoring Gramsci.

Buttigieg died just days after Mayor Pete announced his 2020 presidential exploratory committee.

Lis Smith, communications adviser for Buttigieg’s presidential exploratory committee, declined to comment on how his father influenced his political beliefs or on Pete Buttigieg’s thoughts on Marxist thinkers such as Gramsci.

Pete Buttigieg said in an MSNBC interview on March 20 that he considers himself a capitalist but that the system needs changes.

“The biggest problem with capitalism right now is the way it’s become intertwined with power and is eroding our democracy,” Buttigieg said, noting the influence of big businesses in government.

A self-described progressive, Buttigieg has called to abolish the Electoral College system, supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and thinks that climate change is a national security threat.

In another MSNBC interview in February, Buttigieg said that socialism “is a word in American politics that has basically lost all meaning” and “has been used as a kill switch to stop an idea from being talked about.”

After his son won his mayoral election in 2011, Joseph Buttigieg told the Notre Dame student newspaper that he never expected him to run for office. “I know Peter has been interested in politics for a long time,” Buttigieg said. “At home we always discussed government affairs, but never in that way … I’m very pleased because he’s doing something he genuinely likes.”  Source

So Pete’s father told the Notre Dame student paper: “At home we always discussed government affairs, but never in that way….”  What exactly did that mean? Was his father attempting to distance his Marxist ideology from his son? In other words, is this the way Communists act before one of them runs? Bernie Sanders certainly has not hidden from the people his platform. He is very open about his Socialism.

Looks like Pete holds his cards closer to his vest….

Pete Buttigieg’s High School Essay on his idol:  Bernie Sanders

From washingtonexaminer.com

Buttigieg high school essay praised Sanders as courageous for calling himself ‘Socialist’

Pete Buttigieg, in an award-winning high school essay he wrote in 2000, praised Bernie Sanders as courageous for describing himself as a “Socialist.”

The essay, which received the Profile in Courage Essay Contest award from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Museum and Library, criticized candidates who abandoned their ideals to appeal to a larger number of voters. The 37-year-old presidential candidate singled out Sanders as an example of political “courage.”

Read Buttigieg’s High School Essay on Idol – Bernie Sanders  <click to read

“Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: ‘Socialist,’” wrote Buttigieg. “In a country where Communism is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and Socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with Communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed.

“Here is someone who has ‘looked into his own soul’ and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound,” added Buttigieg. “Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a Congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion.”

The South Bend, Ind., mayor’s essay also suggests that Sanders, then an obscure, radical House member from Vermont, inspired his decision to enter politics. “I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue,” he wrote.

Buttigieg’s father, Joseph Buttigieg, who passed away in January, was a Marxist professor who praised the Communist Manifesto and was an adviser to the Rethinking Marxism academic journal, the Washington Examiner reported earlier this month.

“If The Communist Manifesto was meant to liberate the proletariat, the Manifesto itself in recent years needed liberating from Marxism’s narrow post-Cold War orthodoxies and exclusive cadres. It has been freed,” wrote Joseph Buttigieg in a 1998 article for the Chronicle of Higher Education.

While Buttigieg has shied away from calling himself a socialist on the campaign trail, he has questioned the fairness of the capitalist system and called for reforms.

Buttigieg, a virtual unknown before he entered the presidential race, has been moving steadily up in early polls. He came in third behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in an Emerson survey this week, edging out better-known candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. source

Brethren, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… you know the rest.

Pete Buttigieg is a Socialist. Is there any doubt about this? I think not.

And don’t forget that Socialism leaves no room for God. He is a non-entity. The State demands the full allegiance of its people and will NOT compete with God. By the way, Socialists are atheists – always.

When the Pharisees attempted (as they often did) to trick Jesus, they asked this:

“And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? 

But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him” (Mark 12:14-17).

Even in Rome, the Jews were allowed to render unto God that which is God’s, and to Caesar that which was his.

Not so with Marxist/Socialism. 

Pray for Pete Buttigieg. Pray that the Lord sends one of His own into this man’s life. I pray that he turns from his sinful lifestyle and from his attachment to Marxism/Socialism.

And pray that people are not fooled by his doublespeak. Let the truth be known about this Marxist.

How Can I Be Saved? 

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!!

grandmageri422@gmail.com

Articles at grandmageri422.me

 

Wherewith Shall I Come Before the Lord? :: By Dr. Donald Whitchard

“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:6-8, NKJV).

Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah, the “prince of prophets,” and was God’s prophet during the reign of three kings of Judah:

The first was Jotham (2 Chronicles 27), a godly ruler whose father, Uzziah, also walked with God for over fifty years until his rebellious act of usurping the duties of the priests caused him to live the remainder of his days as a leper (2 Chronicles 26:16-25).

The second ruler under whom Micah prophesied was Jotham’s ungodly son, Ahaz, whose time on the throne was one of idolatry and the wretched act of having his own son sacrificed to the demon god Moloch. He also turned away from trusting God for the nation’s protection and relied on uneasy alliances with neighboring nations (2 Chronicles 28). The one area of light in this dark period was Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the virgin conception (Isaiah 7:14), which would come to pass some seven hundred years later when Mary was chosen to bear the sinless Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:26-38; Matthew 1:18-25).

The last monarch under whom Micah ministered was Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29-32), a godly man who turned the kingdom back towards the LORD. He relied on the LORD when the Assyrians threatened Judah, and was rewarded with fifteen extra years of life by God.

Each king acted before the Sovereign God that either brought about blessing or harm to the people and nation. What the king could not do for them was to bring the required sacrifices before the LORD for the atonement and forgiveness of their sins. This was each individual’s responsibility. Even the prophets of God were not exempt.

Micah pondered the question of what to bring before the LORD as an atonement for his own sins. He was conscious of the fact that the act of sacrifice can begin with reverence and a sense of personal interaction with God, but had the probability of falling into a rote routine that didn’t have any meaning or sense of contrition on his part. A burnt offering was, at best, temporary if you were indeed sorry for your sins, but was useless if your actions weren’t genuine or based on a conscious feeling of sorrow and penance afterward. The second inquiry that Micah pondered was the dedication of his son as a means of showing remorse for sins. What was the motive? Did this action truly honor God, or was it an underhanded means of saving one’s own skin at the risk of another person’s life?

The Scriptures tell us that God has shown us what to do according to the Moral Law (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21, 6:5; Leviticus 19:18), and as history has progressed, these laws of God have never needed to be improved, changed, or updated. Micah teaches that we are to do justly, that is, to walk in accordance with the LORD and to treat people right. He also tells us to be merciful, to show not just sympathy and empathy, but to assist the downtrodden as God leads you. He also says to walk humbly before God. There should never be any room for an ego or a feeling of grandiose attitudes in any persons who wishes to be obedient and a useful vessel for His glory.

The Scriptures point out that there is no way we can be right before God in our own strength and that whatever concept we may have of being “good” will not meet God’s holy standards. We read passages such as Isaiah 1:18 and Romans 1:18-32, 3:10-18, and 6:23 and come face to face with our wickedness, like it or not. In God’s sight, our self-proclaimed righteousness is no better than the rags used to bind a leper’s skin to his body, or a used menstrual cloth (Isaiah 64:6). We cannot come to the Sovereign LORD through religious means, that is, how we as fallen man tend to define what we need to do to appease God or whatever deity one tends to worship. This is nothing more than rank idolatry, which is forbidden by God all throughout the Old and New Testaments, and is totally unacceptable to Him.

Scripture also tells us that any works we do in order to appease God or gain favor outside of His direction and standard is a waste of time and energy. The question is how many “good works” would someone have to do in order to please God in their own strength? The Bible says that our works – apart from service to God as a result of trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins – will not suffice.

Jesus has already borne the hardship of having our sins placed on Him by the Father when He went to the cross; and through His resurrection, that sacrifice was accepted by God the Father as a permanent atonement for our iniquities (Romans 5:6-11; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5, 5:9, 7:14). Salvation is of the LORD (Psalm 68:20), and you are secure in this by the promise of Jesus Himself (John 10:28-30).

This is a teaching that bears repeating. We must confess our sins before the LORD and realize that we cannot save ourselves. If we could, then Jesus died and rose again for nothing. We are justified by Him through His death on the cross (Romans 3:19-26; Ephesians 2:8-10). We must believe in Him for our salvation, placing our full faith and trust in Him (Romans 10:9-10). We do not need to add or include any teaching or belief beyond what Christ has done for us (Galatians 1:8-9). It’s Jesus. Period. There is no “extra-credit Christianity” to obtain or gather.

However, we cannot and will not come before Him in our own power or on our own terms, expecting a deal or compromise. He finds and saves us without our help (John 6:44; Matthew 16:24; Luke 14:26, 33; John 8:12, 31; 10:27). Therefore, we cannot lose what He has freely bestowed on us. This should be a blessed comfort to anyone wondering about where they stand with the LORD at difficult periods of dry faith and doubt.

I encourage you to read passages such as Matthew 11:28-30. The Lord Jesus tells us all throughout the Gospels that He is the One who can heal the sick, comfort the afflicted, raise the dead, and give eternal life to those who come to Him. He is coming again, and I believe much sooner than a lot of people would care to acknowledge. We come before the LORD in brokenness, in sorrow, and repentance; and in turn, He gives us true peace, a place in heaven, and fellowship with Him for all time. Don’t go at this in your own strength. Come to Him today. He wants you, and that is all that matters.

www.compellingtruth.org

drwhitchard@aol.com

www.donaldwhitchard.com