No, Mr. President, you’re no Abraham Lincoln:
It’s also worth noting that the president has done everything he can to claim that his domestic political opponents are engaged in a “war on women.” He won an election largely because he convinced enough women — and pliant journalists — to take this bilge seriously. Just this week the head of his party went on at great length to claim that the Republican governor of Wisconsin has been “giving women the back of his hand.”
Oh, and let us not forget, the president and his supporters work very hard to paint their domestic political opponents as religious extremists because some private businesses and religious groups don’t want to pay for procedures that violate their conscience.
Now compare this to the people who are celebrating the fact their faith allows them to enslave women.
Just think about it for a moment. The president surely knows about this. His administration surely knows about this. And yet, the president — this modern incarnation of Lincoln, protector of women and opponent of domestic religious extremism — defines his goal for ISIS as reducing it to a “manageable problem.” Does this mean that if ISIS renounces any designs on attacking the US homeland (an impossibility given the tenets of their faith and ambition for a global caliphate) he will stand by as they continue to barter women as sex slaves and breeders? This is the same man who campaigned in Berlin as a “citizen of the world” and champion of global community.
Forgive me, but the term, “Lincolnesque” doesn’t immediately spring to mind.
Nope.
Obama certainly isn’t “Douglassesque.” (After one of my heroes, ex-slave turned abolitionist teacher, Fredric Douglass.) See the chapter on Douglass in Jim Powell’s great book , THE TRIUMPH OF LIBERTY. It’s a collection of mini-biographies of great champions of freedom. It’s a book the State-shtuppers would hate. If it went through a hundred revisions and updates over the course of a thousand years, Obama could never get his own chapter in that book. Maybe in a book I hope never gets written, THE DEFEAT OF LIBERTY. Obama could get a chapter between his mentor Saul Alinsky and his successor, Nurse Ratched.
The last sentence in the article is important:
“The disconnect goes beyond mere inconsistency or hypocrisy. It is a moral sickness that is sickening to behold.”
Today’s liberals ARE morally sick. Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, Kerry, and Obama.
Especially Obama.
For liberals to even hint at a war on women by their opponents when crazies like ISIS and the Muslim brotherhood espouse FGM, burkhas, slavery and no school for women, is beyond insane.
To casually threaten the lives of US citizens..here on US soil – by keeping open borders is insane and morally reprehensible.
Leaving our citizens to twist in the wind in Benghazi without even trying is morally repugnant, reprenhensible and insane.
These are sick twisted individuals.
“For liberals to even hint at a war on women by their opponents when crazies like ISIS and the Muslim brotherhood espouse FGM, burkhas, slavery and no school for women, is beyond insane.”
It is beyond insane considering the exalted status of Bill Clinton and how Filner was treated or for that matter, how much female staffers are paid by Democrats. Hey Democrats, you don’t need to have a law to force people to pay women the same if your philosophy is that women should be paid the same, just live your philosophy.
For one thing Lincoln was Republican.
Obama is neither Abraham Hussein Lincoln nor Frederick Hussein Douglass. He is Peter Hussein Principle.
Who’d have imagined that opposition to slavery is once again a political litmus test.
Iowahawk says it best:
David Burge @iowahawkblog · 15h
Gang rape slavery in the UK? ISIS killing girls for refusing “marriage”? Boko Haram? US feminists are on the case!