• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama's Left always was anti-faith and family

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as painted by Alan Ramsay, 1766 (Public domain). The ideological origins of President Obama's wing of the Democratic party are rooted in Rousseau's view that traditional institutions like the church are enemies of man's natural freedom.
j-j-rousseah.jpg



No matter the ultimate destination of Rick Santorum's current surge in popularity in the GOP presidential nomination battle, his rise to prominence is sparking a renewed interest in "the social issues," helped along by President Obama's latest bureaucratic salvo against religious institutions.

There are two important points to keep in mind here as the campaign goes forward. First, the conventional wisdom has it that Republicans should at all costs avoid embracing the social issues - pro-family, pro-life and pro-faith-based institutions - because, otherwise, they will lose the all-important independent voter.

Better to keep the focus exclusively on the economic issues where Obama is most vulnerable and which most voters see as their top-priority issues. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' familiar suggestion that a "truce" be declared for now between social conservatives and economic conservatives, with the concerns of the former assemblies taking a temporary backseat to those of the latter groups, epitomizes this approach.

But the reality is, as supply-side economist and gold standard guru Jeffrey Bell reminds us in his forthcoming book - "The Case for Polarized Politics," which is ably described today in The Wall Street Journal's Weekend Interview by James Taranto* - Republicans are most successful in national elections when both sets of issues are prominently addressed, with neither given prominence over the other, and in conjunction with a third element, national security concerns.

In the WSJ interview, Bell tells Taranto that: "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

This fact ought not surprise anybody familiar with the notion of GOP fusionism originally prescribed by National Review editor Frank Meyer in the early 1960s. Republican prospects depend mainly on the ability of the party's presidential candidates to unite economic, national defense and social conservatives in one grand coalition. Failing to appeal to any one of these three legs to the stool results in defeat.

From this perspective then, Santorum's embrace of social issues is a strength for the GOP, not a weakness, something to be heartened by, not threatened. He's already strong on national defense issues, so his biggest vulnerability may well be on the economic side where his views have a distinctly mercantilist tone in some areas.

The second point here - also made prominently by Bell, as quoted by Taranto - is that nobody should be surprised that Obama initiatives so often have an anti-religious cast to them. Consider the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) recent assertion of authority to tell religious denominations who they can hire and fire as ministers. The EEOC met with a unanimous rejection by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even so, the overwhelming EEOC loss didn't prevent Obama's Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, from issuing a proposed Obamacare rule forcing religious institutions, including churches, schools, charities and hospitals, to provide free birth control benefits in the health insurance they make available to employees, even if that coverage include abortifacients like the Morning-After pill that, for many, violates fundamental religious doctrines.

The HHS rule - including the subsequent "compromise" version - clearly violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and was greeted with an explosion of opposition from Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis and legions of their followers in the pews. Odds are it will get a similar reaction in the Supreme Court as the administration's EEOC initiative.

But the Left has been attacking traditional religious and family insitutitons for centuries, so, in relentlessly pushing these kinds of anti-faith initiatives, Obama is merely being true to his ideological roots. He is very much a product of the radical center of the Democratic Party, with its origins in the far-left student movements of the 1960s.

The intensity of reaction to the HHS rule likely confirmed for Obama and his strategists the rightness of their effort. As Bell puts it to Taranto, "they were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The Left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."

The opening line of Jean Jacque Rousseau's The Social Contract tells the story here: "Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains." With that sentence, Rousseau captured the essential principle driving the Left's view of society, economics, law, everthing: In the state of nature where men are born, complete freedom reigns.

But when men organize themselves into societies, convention (also known as habit or tradition) suffocates this natural freedom, making men slaves to kings, priests and tradition. Thus, the fundamental goal of left-wing ideology is always, in one way or another and to a greater or lesser degree, to liberate men from convention.

The virulence with which leftists have so long pursued their goals - particularly with regard to social issues and institutions - was perfectly captured long ago in the words of 18th century theorist and French Revolution light Denis Diderot: "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Remember that the next time you hear talk of a "compromise" on the latest anti-faith, anti-family initiative from the Left. As a prudential matter, of course, all but the most radical of them will try to dissassociate themselves from such sentiments (Recall Obama's distancing response when Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views became an issue during the 2008 presidential campaign).

But sooner or later, leftists like Obama - as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. - always push for more and more regulation. And off at the end, their ultimate purpose is to subordinate traditional institutions entirely to the bureaucratic dictates of the all-powerful state.

* Author's note: In the original version of this post, I confused the book and the interview. The Bell quotes above are from Taranto's WSJ interview, not the book. My apologies to Taranto and Bell, for the confusion.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obamas-left-always-was-anti-faith-and-family/382561#disqus_thread
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
5,654
Reaction score
12
Location
north central Nebraska
How did the Democratic Party get so screwed up, following the radical left and radical feminism.
It seems to me that all that is contrary to all the principles which our country was founded on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Martin Jr. said:
How did the Democratic Party get so screwed up, following the radical left and radical feminism.
It seems to me that all that is contrary to all the principles which our country was founded on.

Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
Martin Jr. said:
How did the Democratic Party get so screwed up, following the radical left and radical feminism.
It seems to me that all that is contrary to all the principles which our country was founded on.

Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.


He said "Radical Feminism", there is a difference......Conservatives don't believe in Patriarchy anymore than you


Radical Feminism Versus Liberal Feminism

Feminist theories are an extension of feminism into theoretical and philosophical discourse. They aim at understanding of the nature of gender inequality .They in turn examine women’s social roles and life experiences .While in general some provide a critique of social relationships .Most feminist theories also focus on analysing gender inequality and the promotion of women’s rights, interests and issues .Among such theories are the Liberal feminism and the Radical feminism theories. While Liberal and Radical feminism both seek to ensure that women have access to resources and human rights in a gender equal environment they however do not necessarily employ similar methods in achieving these results. Each has its own distinct reason behind whatever methods they engage to achieve their goals.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
But I thought he was atheist, Socialistic Communist who was Muslim Facist???
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
hurleyjd said:
Martin Jr. said:
How did the Democratic Party get so screwed up, following the radical left and radical feminism.
It seems to me that all that is contrary to all the principles which our country was founded on.

Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.

So you want Sharia law, hurley? Sounds like it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
hurleyjd said:
Martin Jr. said:
How did the Democratic Party get so screwed up, following the radical left and radical feminism.
It seems to me that all that is contrary to all the principles which our country was founded on.

Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.

So you want Sharia law, hurley? Sounds like it.

That is what the conservatives will bring to us. No I do not want Sharia Law. I was stating that if it was left up to the Conservative Males that always want to go back to what our founding fathers wanted for us you would have to recognize the fact that the woman had no rights at all at that time. That is until Women started asserting their rights and asking and demanding them. That may be radical feminism and I am all for it. You did not see the irony in my statement.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
loomixguy said:
hurleyjd said:
Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.

So you want Sharia law, hurley? Sounds like it.

That is what the conservatives will bring to us. No I do not want Sharia Law. I was stating that if it was left up to the Conservative Males that always want to go back to what our founding fathers wanted for us you would have to recognize the fact that the woman had no rights at all at that time. That is until Women started asserting their rights and asking and demanding them. That may be radical feminism and I am all for it. You did not see the irony in my statement.




The Constitution did not control those rights at the time, the states did, if I remember correctly.


If it wasn't for the Constitution, women still might not have those rights, and the blacks would not have the rights they have.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Though it is true that there was a time that women could not vote or won property, if you truly think that they had no say in anything, you, my friend, are sadly mistaken. How do you think George Washington acquired Mt. Vernon? By marrying Martha!

Times change, and customs evolve. At least, they change and evolve for non-Muslims. Hadji is still stuck in the sand around 700 AD. The Burka Babes truly have no rights whatsoever.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hurleyjd said:
loomixguy said:
hurleyjd said:
Yes my friend we need to go back to the time a woman could not vote, did not have a say about anything could not own property. If we went back to that time when conservatives ruled the woman that post on this forum would be banned and if they did their post would have to be censored by their husbands.

So you want Sharia law, hurley? Sounds like it.

That is what the conservatives will bring to us. No I do not want Sharia Law. I was stating that if it was left up to the Conservative Males that always want to go back to what our founding fathers wanted for us you would have to recognize the fact that the woman had no rights at all at that time. That is until Women started asserting their rights and asking and demanding them. That may be radical feminism and I am all for it. You did not see the irony in my statement.

no,... I just thought you were being an - - -



lossy-page1-403px-Suffragette_banner._One_of_the_banners%2C_the_women_who_picketed_the_White_House_._._._-_NARA_-_533769.tif.jpg
Twenty million women are denied the right to vote. President Wilson is the chief opponent of their national enfranchisement".

After years of opposition, Wilson changed his position in 1918. The next year Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote

In the summer of 1865, Republicans proposed a Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would enfranchise the two million newly freed black men.

1867, Sam Wood, leader of the state Republican arrived in Kansas by request of Stone, and invited the Equal Rights Association to help launch their women's suffrage campaign.

At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June.

darn facts.. care to apologize?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
hurleyjd said:
loomixguy said:
So you want Sharia law, hurley? Sounds like it.

That is what the conservatives will bring to us. No I do not want Sharia Law. I was stating that if it was left up to the Conservative Males that always want to go back to what our founding fathers wanted for us you would have to recognize the fact that the woman had no rights at all at that time. That is until Women started asserting their rights and asking and demanding them. That may be radical feminism and I am all for it. You did not see the irony in my statement.

no,... I just thought you were being an - - -



lossy-page1-403px-Suffragette_banner._One_of_the_banners%2C_the_women_who_picketed_the_White_House_._._._-_NARA_-_533769.tif.jpg
Twenty million women are denied the right to vote. President Wilson is the chief opponent of their national enfranchisement".

After years of opposition, Wilson changed his position in 1918. The next year Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote

In the summer of 1865, Republicans proposed a Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would enfranchise the two million newly freed black men.

1867, Sam Wood, leader of the state Republican arrived in Kansas by request of Stone, and invited the Equal Rights Association to help launch their women's suffrage campaign.

At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June.

darn facts.. care to apologize?

The Republican party of then is not the Republican party of now...In fact almost exact opposites....The Repubs freed the slaves- they were the monopoly breakers during Teddys time- the Repubs were the isolationists that wanted to stay out of WWII no matter what...Then they flipped in the past few years....

Remember the conservative south was solid Democrat until a few years back and Repubs/Dems flipped on many of their beliefs-- and one of those was on Constitutional rights- and that all are created equal.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
/Dems flipped on many of their beliefs-- and one of those was on Constitutional rights- and that all are created equal.....

history shows that the conservatives/republicans have stood by for equal rights and upheld the Constitution..

and that liberals have not..

so really nothing has changed..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
/Dems flipped on many of their beliefs-- and one of those was on Constitutional rights- and that all are created equal.....

history shows that the conservatives/republicans have stood by for equal rights and upheld the Constitution..

and that liberals have not..

so really nothing has changed..

So you're saying that since the south was solid Democrat until just a few years ago- all southerners were Liberals :???:

No- its well known by anyone thats been around awhile that neither party is what it used to be....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
/Dems flipped on many of their beliefs-- and one of those was on Constitutional rights- and that all are created equal.....

history shows that the conservatives/republicans have stood by for equal rights and upheld the Constitution..

and that liberals have not..

so really nothing has changed..

So you're saying that since the south was solid Democrat until just a few years ago- all southerners were Liberals :???:

No- its well known by anyone thats been around awhile that neither party is what it used to be....

people change.. at one point you claimed to support conservative causes.. you changed..

but the parties are for the most part the same.. both facts and history proves my point.. the facts and history are clear..
Republicans have supported the Constitution and equal rights.. liberals have not..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
history shows that the conservatives/republicans have stood by for equal rights and upheld the Constitution..

and that liberals have not..

so really nothing has changed..

So you're saying that since the south was solid Democrat until just a few years ago- all southerners were Liberals :???:

No- its well known by anyone thats been around awhile that neither party is what it used to be....

people change.. at one point you claimed to support conservative causes.. you changed..

but the parties are for the most part the same.. both facts and history proves my point.. the facts and history are clear..
Republicans have supported the Constitution and equal rights.. liberals have not..


Here is a good example-- the same Republican Party that opposed getting involved in any foreign wars- not wanting to even support the Europeans against Hitler--- are now the war mongers, nation builders and believe the US should be the policemen of the world- including the Muslim world.....


CNN reports from inside Syria
As conservatives in Washington urged President Barack Obama to take action on Syria, CNN's Arwa Damon reported Friday that new violence was expected. And sure enough, the violence came.
CNN cannot confirm the authenticity of the footage Damon discusses, but the clip appears to show the vantage point of snipers. Reports say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been ordering attacks on citizens.

Damon and CNN's Ivan Watson are reporting from Syria despite the country's attempt to block journalists.

Damon said residents are bracing for the worst in Homs, where the intensity of the attack by Syria's government is overwhelming. Women, children and men have been desperate to tell Damon their stories.


Meanwhile, prominent U.S. conservatives are urging the Obama administration to "take immediate action" against the Syrian regime, including "no-go zones" for al-Assad's military and "self-defense aid" to resistance forces. Fifty-six foreign policy experts and former U.S. government officials signed a letter dated Friday calling for proactive U.S.-led steps against the government. It comes as Syrian citizens and activists plead for world powers to help stop the government's bloody crackdown.

The conservatives calling for action include Karl Rove, the former Bush administration adviser; Paul Bremer, in charge of the U.S. occupation in Iraq after the 2003 invasion; R. James Woolsey, former CIA chief; Robert McFarlane, former Reagan national security adviser; and Dan Senor, a former Bremer adviser and spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Reaction score
438
Location
Big Muddy valley
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
So you're saying that since the south was solid Democrat until just a few years ago- all southerners were Liberals :???:

No- its well known by anyone thats been around awhile that neither party is what it used to be....

people change.. at one point you claimed to support conservative causes.. you changed..

but the parties are for the most part the same.. both facts and history proves my point.. the facts and history are clear..
Republicans have supported the Constitution and equal rights.. liberals have not..


Here is a good example-- the same Republican Party that opposed getting involved in any foreign wars- not wanting to even support the Europeans against Hitler--- are now the war mongers, nation builders and believe the US should be the policemen of the world- including the Muslim world.....


CNN reports from inside Syria
As conservatives in Washington urged President Barack Obama to take action on Syria, CNN's Arwa Damon reported Friday that new violence was expected. And sure enough, the violence came.
CNN cannot confirm the authenticity of the footage Damon discusses, but the clip appears to show the vantage point of snipers. Reports say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been ordering attacks on citizens.

Damon and CNN's Ivan Watson are reporting from Syria despite the country's attempt to block journalists.

Damon said residents are bracing for the worst in Homs, where the intensity of the attack by Syria's government is overwhelming. Women, children and men have been desperate to tell Damon their stories.


Meanwhile, prominent U.S. conservatives are urging the Obama administration to "take immediate action" against the Syrian regime, including "no-go zones" for al-Assad's military and "self-defense aid" to resistance forces. Fifty-six foreign policy experts and former U.S. government officials signed a letter dated Friday calling for proactive U.S.-led steps against the government. It comes as Syrian citizens and activists plead for world powers to help stop the government's bloody crackdown.

The conservatives calling for action include Karl Rove, the former Bush administration adviser; Paul Bremer, in charge of the U.S. occupation in Iraq after the 2003 invasion; R. James Woolsey, former CIA chief; Robert McFarlane, former Reagan national security adviser; and Dan Senor, a former Bremer adviser and spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

Is that the Syrian /Pro Islam government that is killing civilian women and children?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
people change.. at one point you claimed to support conservative causes.. you changed..

but the parties are for the most part the same.. both facts and history proves my point.. the facts and history are clear..
Republicans have supported the Constitution and equal rights.. liberals have not..


Here is a good example-- the same Republican Party that opposed getting involved in any foreign wars- not wanting to even support the Europeans against Hitler--- are now the war mongers, nation builders and believe the US should be the policemen of the world- including the Muslim world.....


CNN reports from inside Syria
As conservatives in Washington urged President Barack Obama to take action on Syria, CNN's Arwa Damon reported Friday that new violence was expected. And sure enough, the violence came.
CNN cannot confirm the authenticity of the footage Damon discusses, but the clip appears to show the vantage point of snipers. Reports say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been ordering attacks on citizens.

Damon and CNN's Ivan Watson are reporting from Syria despite the country's attempt to block journalists.

Damon said residents are bracing for the worst in Homs, where the intensity of the attack by Syria's government is overwhelming. Women, children and men have been desperate to tell Damon their stories.


Meanwhile, prominent U.S. conservatives are urging the Obama administration to "take immediate action" against the Syrian regime, including "no-go zones" for al-Assad's military and "self-defense aid" to resistance forces. Fifty-six foreign policy experts and former U.S. government officials signed a letter dated Friday calling for proactive U.S.-led steps against the government. It comes as Syrian citizens and activists plead for world powers to help stop the government's bloody crackdown.

The conservatives calling for action include Karl Rove, the former Bush administration adviser; Paul Bremer, in charge of the U.S. occupation in Iraq after the 2003 invasion; R. James Woolsey, former CIA chief; Robert McFarlane, former Reagan national security adviser; and Dan Senor, a former Bremer adviser and spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

Is that the Syrian /Pro Islam government that is killing civilian women and children?

Since about everyone in Syria follows Islam- any government you get there is going to be pro- Islam.....

Religions of Syria

Membership in a religious community is ordinarily determined by birth. Based on statistical analyses from 2006, Muslims were estimated as constituting 90% of the total population, although their proportion was possibly greater and was certainly growing. The Muslim birthrate reportedly was higher than that of the minorities, and proportionately fewer Muslims were emigrating abroad. Of the Muslims, 74% were members of the Sunni branch(including Sufism.), while the remaining 12% were Alawites, Ismailis and Twelvers combined. 9% of the population was made up by Christians, while the remaining 3% were Druze. .
 

Latest posts

Top