Why Women Should Not Vote For Barack Obama

[Guest]

by Da Tagliare

Since the start of the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats, including Barack Obama have done their best to convince the women of America that the Republicans have declared war on them because of the GOP pro-life stance.

However, who has really declared war on women?

To start with, the current Democratic administration continues to support Egypt’s new government run by the extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Imposing strict Sharia law, women become subject to torture, beatings and humiliation by the men. Their status is not much different to that of slaves, cattle and chickens.

Then there are the attacks made by Democrat Hilary Rosen saying Ann Romney has not worked a day in her life. I would think this would offend every stay at home mom in the country. Various studies over the years have proven that stay at home moms often work harder and longer hours than many women and men in the work force. Then add to that Ann Romney raised five boys, which any mom will tell you is a tough full time job.

What about one of the Democrat’s poster boys – former President Bill Clinton? We could just mention the Monica Lewinski case which did reveal that Clinton had oral sex with Lewinski in the Oval office while he was married to Hillary. However, according to Michael Isikoff, author of Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story, the former president has been implicated in at least five instances of rape, including former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

One of the Democratic Party stalwarts for years was Senator Ted Kennedy. Many of the younger generation may not know about his involvement with the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Though exonerated by local and state police, the facts of the incident do not add up to the innocence he has claimed. I suggest you read more on the subject.

More recently, a number of feminists and chapters of the National Organization for Women have condemned the Democratic National Committee for their policies concerning mothers with children attending the upcoming Democratic National Convention. According to Lindsey Horvath, president of NOW Hollywood, babies and children are required to be credentialed but then the DNC turns around and denies the credential requests from moms that are unable to leave their children at home or are breastfeeding.

This policy basically stops any mother of young children from being a delegate and participating in the convention.

Or perhaps the Democrats should have Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee speak at the upcoming convention of anti-bullying. She is well known for her bullying of staff members, which has led to her having the highest turnover in office personnel in Washington D.C. She throws around the ‘f-word’ at staffers along with objects, causing them to duct, cower and quit.

And if you want to talk about the top female Democrats representing their Party’s finest, you have Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, who is so out of touch with reality that she hasn’t a clue what’s really going on. Then you have Rep.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is running a close second behind Pelosi on the loony scale. Now add Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who is married to an accused serial rapist and whose closest confidant and advisor has known ties to Muslim terrorist organizations.

There are also the controversial figures on women and unemployment that Mitt Romney has bantered around and while some may argue over those figures, according to FactCheck.org, women have a net loss of 683,000 jobs since Obama took office.

I think the clincher on how the Democratic Party feels about women is the lack of defending traditional family structure and values. They stopped enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, even though both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder swore to uphold all of the laws of the land. Their endorsement of same-sex marriage only further destroys the important role of wives and mothers. Lastly, are the administration’s policies that force America’s women and men to go against their religious faith in the name of progressive healthcare.

If any political party has a war on women or a history of abusing and mistreating them, it’s definitely the Democratic Party. I would think that most women want to be treated with respect and decency instead of an object to use and abuse. Yet I don’t understand why a majority of women continue to vote Democratic. I just hope and pray they finally wake up and realize who and what the Democrats really are.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6759/why-women-should-not-vote-for-barack-obama/#ixzz24bhuyUIH

[Neil D]

by Da Tagliare

Since the start of the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats, including Barack Obama have done their best to convince the women of America that the Republicans have declared war on them because of the GOP pro-life stance.

However, who has really declared war on women?

To start with, the current Democratic administration continues to support Egypt’s new government run by the extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Imposing strict Sharia law, women become subject to torture, beatings and humiliation by the men. Their status is not much different to that of slaves, cattle and chickens.

[bonnie]

Aside from the fact that this article is about Obama and the designers have the clinton/liewensky picture up, the lead point is about sharia law and women in Egypt?

Really? You are kidding me, right? The law of the land here in the good ol' US of A is the Constitution....not Sharia...despite what some may try to imply...

This is your lead point in pointing out that democrates are out to get women? Really? And the price of tea in china affects the US how again???

Most democrats that claim to be about the support of women supported Bill Clinton.Had it not been for women,some actually saying they wouldn't mind being in Monica's "position" Clinton would have been forced from office

Despite what some are implying the article states the democrats support Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood in their treatment of women,not that Sharia law is recognized in the US

To start with, the current Democratic administration continues to support Egypt’s new government run by the extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Imposing strict Sharia law, women become subject to torture, beatings and humiliation by the men. Their status is not much different to that of slaves, cattle and chickens.

Quote:

next, we[or rather the designers of this article] go thru a list of people who are known to have exploited women and workers...I am sure that we can match those person to person and we can go one better....we can make a CURRENT list, not a past list that is outdated by 8 years...of whom Micheal Bauchmamn and Sara Palin would rival for top chair of either saying stupid uninformed things or just doing the sterotyped ditsy blonde at times...

[color:#000099]No,what it says is ...Then there are the attacks made by Democrat Hilary Rosen saying Ann Romney has not worked a day in her life. I would think this would offend every stay at home mom in the country. Various studies over the years have proven that stay at home moms often work harder and longer hours than many women and men in the work force. Then add to that Ann Romney raised five boys, which any mom will tell you is a tough full time job.

The distractions have been made by democrats ridiculing Ann Romney,who it sounds like you believe is a ditzy blonde.

The lions share of our economic problems have to do with the housing debacle. Mostly caused by democrats demanding everyone has a right to own a home whether they can afford it or not.

If memory serves me right Bush tried several times to get this addressed and was shot down.

[LifeHiscost]

While not an expert in political shenanigan's, where is the record kept that reveals that the last five presidents were straight shooters when it came to upholding the constitution of the U. S. when push came to shove, most especially when it is seen that devaluing the country's money is the best way possible to destroy any country's infrastructure, Bill Clinton being the only one to get that straight. That is of course ignoring the fact that moral integrity nationwide in general proves the middle to be rotten to the core.

God blesses!

[Neil D]

How is this, Life, applical to women and thier issues?

Just asking and not attacking, cause I don't see what you are getting at in relation to women's issues....

[LifeHiscost]

How is this, Life, applical to women and their issues?

Just asking and not attacking, cause I don't see what you are getting at in relation to women's issues....

It may seem a stretch, but when the republican principles of the constitution of the U.S. are ignored as a result of our leaders failing to realize their highest duty is to the constitution of the U.S. and its' constituents, barring the coming of our Lord before these things should develop (prophecy doesn't really leave this option open IMHO) what is there to keep a government from emerging in the U.S., whose highest allegiance is to the religion of Sharia law, that literally enslaves women to their male counterparts, something to which our present President is willing to bow.

God blesses!

[Neil D]

See, I don't see Shiria Law coming to the US at all...I don't see where you think that it's creeping into the US...The US general population doesn't like the oppressive religion of muslims. That doesn't mean we don't tolerate those that buy into that religion..but there are some major instances where prejudices are coming thru to the general public that show an undercurrent of dislike for most things muslim...And the Muslim communities KNOW it...Even they, generally speaking don't like the oppressive-ness of Muslim/Shria law.

So for you to propound that Shiria law is coming to the US, let alone exercised within it's borders, is quite preposterous...

And as for you to say that the president is supportive of said Shria law really points to your being somewhat ...well, for lack of a better word, ignorant of the relationship with his wife and children...There is a difference relationship between muslim parents and thier children that is not evident with the president's children. And the press would show it if it came out....

[Guest]

Shariah in America’s courts

A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. America needs better judges.

On Tuesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district court order blocking implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that sought to ban judges from using international or Muslim law as a basis for deciding cases. The amendment was approved in November 2010 by a 70 percent popular vote but has never been enforced. Plaintiff Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), argued that the amendment infringed on his First Amendment rights. The appeals court agreed.

It should be obvious that judges shouldn’t look outside the laws and traditions of their jurisdictions when deciding cases, but in the liberal judicial-activist framework, anything goes. Whether it’s the latest thinking from the United Nations or Muslim activists, the currently fashionable, best-selling dogma of social science or simply random emanations of penumbrae, the modern activist jurist doesn’t feel bound by stuffy conventions like a literal reading of the law, the intent of the legislature that passed it or the hoary old hand of precedent. Indeed, judicial activists only value precedent when they read a novel doctrine into case law and then demand it be given reverence by all who follow.

The Oklahoma amendment took specific aim at two of the latest fads being discussed in legal circles, and that was the problem. The amendment stated that courts “shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Shariah law.” Specifically noting Koran-based law gave Muslim activists a wedge to take the case to court, claiming they were being unfairly discriminated against.

The amendment then fell under strict scrutiny standards that it could have avoided had it not singled out Islam. True, there is no pressing movement to read Catholic canon law into the American legal corpus or to insist that all readings of the law be “Mosaic compliant,” but focusing on Islam was a tactical error, calling attention to the obvious.

The appeals court addressed this matter as an establishment clause case. The decision notes that Mr. Awad had standing to sue because he “suffers a form of ‘personal and unwelcome contact’ with an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would target his religion for disfavored treatment.” This is ironic because proponents of basing American legal decisions on the Koran seek a form of favorable bias that the Oklahoma amendment sought to forestall.

Mixed-up thinking on this issue was on display in September 2010 when Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer mused on “Good Morning America” that the fact that mobs of foreign extremists riot over people burning the Koran should force American jurists to consider limits on free expression in the United States.

It’s a shame it takes a state constitutional amendment to admonish judges to avoid following foreign law, religion or other irrelevancies to guide their opinions. Oklahoma lawmakers need to revisit the amendment in question and rewrite it in a way that can stand scrutiny. It shouldn’t be so difficult to tell judges to do the right thing.

The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/11/shariah-in-americas-courts/#ixzz25Q2bdxyi

[Guest]

And the press would show it if it came out....

Right...

More likely they would go out of their way to hide it. Like everything else they don't talk about, but should. And would, if he were a republican.

[OzarkWoman]

Our constitution has not been followed strictly for over 100 years. YES, Sharia is in this country and becoming more dominate.

[Neil D]

Oh, wow...you gave me evidence from AN EDITORIAL PAGE!!!! That is NOT evidence...it is an OPINION...

So, I will match your opinion with an Opinion...

Heed the principles here, Richard...otherwise, among the labels of troll, I can add "Xenophobic" and possibly "racist" to your grave and ugly but truthful names.

by Zachary Scott 16 January 2012

Zachary ScottScott examines the implications behind the proposed ban against Sharia law. He argues that this very proposal proves prejudice is still prevelant in society.

Of all of Mark Twain’s great quotes, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” has always stuck out to me as especially insightful.

In the wake of House Bill 2029, this quote is even more relevant. This bill, proposed by Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, aims to prevent “the application of foreign law which would impair constitutional rights.” Behind those carefully chosen words lies the real goal: to ban Sharia law.

To most Americans, Sharia law is some terrifying and foreign thing. That’s because, quite frankly, they have no idea what it is. Political science professor Sean Yom who specializes in the region, gives a great explanation.

“At heart, [sharia law] is a set of principles that cover personal conduct, such as criminal punishment and family matters,” Yom said. “It is not a freestanding ‘code’ like we assume in the West. There is no ‘book of Sharia law’ because little is written in stone.”

Furthermore, there is no system of implementation in America.

“Because the supreme law of America is predicated upon the Constitution, no judge–even if he were a conservative Muslim trained in Sharia law–could ever promulgate Sharia law into existence,” Yom said.

So if a ban on not only Sharia law but all “foreign law,” as Swanger calls it in her bill, is inherent in the American legal structure, why is it necessary to legislate it? She argues that one of her primary objectives is protecting the rights of women.

“My main concern is rights for women because I know that under some foreign law, women certainly don’t have the rights that they have here in our country, under our Constitution,” Swanger said in an interview with Philadelphia Weekly.

While this may sound pleasant and appealing, it merely masquerades behind those pretenses.

“A symbolic bill against foreign laws does nothing to protect the millions of women in this country who are raped and beaten by American citizens, not foreigners,” Yom said.

The excuses that American law needs to be granted supremacy over Sharia law or that women need to be protected clearly have no reality behind them. There is only one reason why this bill was proposed, and it is as ugly as it is simple: Prejudice still exists in America.

Let us not forget that the past decade has been bursting at the seams with examples of American action in the Middle East. When the average American adds all this up, they come to only one conclusion: America is really at war with the entire Arab world.

When Mark Twain said “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” he was absolutely right. As has frequently happened during wartime, the title of “enemy of America” has been handed out and there are some willing to act under the guise of patriotism. What we are seeing right now is history rhyming with German-Americans being forced to buy war bonds to prove their loyalty in World War I and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

If you think that this kind of thing is impossible in our modern day, then look no further than the recent protests over the TLC show “All-American Muslim.” Some “Christian-values” organizations such as the Florida Family Association, have written thousands of letters to advertisers to get them to pull funding. They believe it is “propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law.”

Here, let me paraphrase. “I believe all Muslims are terrorists. This show portrays most Muslims as not terrorists. Quick! Get it off!”

What truly angers me is that I can guarantee that I know what the people of FFA or Swanger think they are doing. They probably believe that they are “defending America” from some sort of threat. When they look in the mirror, they probably see a hero.

I saw the real face of xenophobia when I was in the fifth grade. There was a Muslim girl in our class, and I remember a time when she didn’t come to school for several days. Our teacher sat the entire class down and explained that her family had gone to McDonalds, where they were called terrorists and told to leave. Those who didn’t partake applauded when they left.

I remember trying to figure out what the difference between her and me was. Everything I thought of just seemed so superficial.

Introducing a bill to ban Sharia law or protesting a show on the same channel that brought us “Sister Wives” may be to a different degree, but it is still the same motivation as what that poor girl was forced to bear.

We live next door to Muslim-Americans. We shop at the same grocery store with them. We sit next to them in our classrooms. And now, it is time to stand beside them and demand that the ignorant people who speak the loudest do not speak for all of us.

Americans today regret our actions towards our own brothers during World War I and World War II. History has once again rhymed and presented us with a situation to avoid making the same mistake. If we don’t, and instead allow the spreading xenophobic attitude to curtail Muslim-American rights, it will go down in history as another black eye for this country.

http://temple-news.com/opinion/2012/01/16/proposed-ban-on-sharia-law-is-out-of-ignorance/

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

“Because the supreme law of America is predicated upon the Constitution, no judge–even if he were a conservative Muslim trained in Sharia law–could ever promulgate Sharia law into existence,” Yom said.

How about a black eye to the Creator, Whose world this is.

It is my contention the Islamic issue is merely a diversion, while the issue to bring a close to history as we know it, is continuing unabated.

The enforcement of Sundaykeeping on the part of Protestant churches is an enforcement of the worship of the papacy....

In the very act of enforcing a religious duty by secular power, the churches would themselves form an image to the beast; hence the enforcement of Sundaykeeping in the United States would be an enforcement of the worship of the beast and his image.— The Great Controversy, 445, 448, 449 (1911).

When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near.—Testimonies for the Church 5:451 (1885).

Rome Will Regain Her Lost Supremacy

As we approach the last crisis it is of vital moment that harmony and unity exist among the Lord’s instrumentalities. The world is filled with storm and war and variance. Yet under one head—the papal power—the people will unite to oppose God in the person of His witnesses. This union is cemented by the great apostate.—Testimonies for the Church 7:182 (1902).

Laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath will bring about a national apostasy from the principles of republicanism upon which the government has been founded. The religion of the papacy will be accepted by the rulers, and the law of God will be made void.—Manuscript Releases 7:192 (1906).

A day of great intellectual darkness has been shown to be favorable to the success of popery. It will yet be demonstrated that a day of great intellectual light is equally favorable for its success.—

The Spirit of Prophecy 4:390 (1884). underlined mine LHC

God blesses!

[Guest]

Amen LHC. But the Muslim thing still may play into it, in a way we don't understand yet. Time will tell.

[Neil D]

Quote:

How about a black eye to the Creator, Whose world this is.

It is my contention the Islamic issue is merely a diversion, while the issue to bring a close to history as we know it, is continuing unabated.

You want to play that card? The "our God is not able to defend Himself" card? Again, how is that relivant to the discussion of why women should not vote for B. Obama?

You forget this-

Quote:

When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near.—Testimonies for the Church 5:451 (1885).

I fear that if the republicans take the election, then this prophecy will come true....assuming that those who post here are like the rest of the country.....